1981 pl mn
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PlANNING C(M.1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 1981 ~ .!. !'i !:! I ~ ~
Page 1 of 1
. PUBLIC HEARING: C.L.U.P (Continued):
Collectors Streets: Rachel Leonardo, 5845 Cotmtry Club Road, referred to
Page 93, asking that the entire middle paragraph be deleted, as she does not
like even the idea of the COtmtry Club Road/Yellowstone Trail/Lake Linden Drive
route being suggested as a collector's street.
Councilman Al Leonardo stated the intent of the Planning Corrrnission and the
Cotmcil was merely to consider alternatives and not to make either a finn
decision or a reconmendation in that paragraph. Bob Gagne felt that this para-
graph provides a protective measure rather than seeing it as a deterrent.
Chainnan Stover gave assurance that this matter is tmdergoing thorough study.
The public hearing was closed to the audience for participation, at 9:47 P.M.
Watten moved, Leslie seconded, that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be tabled
to the August 4,1981 meeting. Motion carries 5-2 (Spellman, Gagne - nay).
Discussion: Janet Leslie requested of the Planner to check the lot sizes on
the east side of Howards Point Road, of which the Planner replied that he would
do. Further, she asked whether or not the traffic problem on the COLmtry Club
Road/Yellowstone Traill Lake Linden Drive was really a State or COLmty problem
rather than the City's. The Planner replied that it was the City's problem.
.
REPORTS:
- COLmcil Liaison Leonardo reported that the Cotmcil had approved the Conditional
Use Pennit for the Medical/Professional Building; further that the traffic study
presented was only on behalf of the exit/entrance to the Medical/Professional
Building.
- The Goering, Courture, Courture subdivision request was turned down.
,- Park COOtfrission: . Bob Gagne reported from the Park COIllllission meeting of
July 20th=-tMt the Park Corrrnission wants input from the Planner regarding the
whole concept of Freeman Park as to where the location of things, especially,
the roads are to be: (1) should the primary access be off Eureka Road and is
Eureka Road considered a collectors street? (2) should the secondary access be
off State Highway No. 7? Input also is wanted from the Planning Com:nission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Leslie rroved, Reese seconded, to adjoum the meeting at 10:21 P.M. Motion carries
7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
{)ad
Dart Fahrenbruch
.
~
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
PUBLIC "ON-SITE INSPECTION"
SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1981
.
NOTICE
OF
o N - SIT E INS P E C T ION
THE SHOREWOOD PlANNING C<M1ISSION WILL MEET ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1981,
AT 9:00 A.M. ON THE SITE OF THE MICHAEL J:. PIERRO PROPER'IY LOCATED AT
5890 CHRISTWS LAKE ROAD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ON-SITE INSPECTION
RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR A SIMPLE DIVISION INTO 'IWO LOTS, TO CONTAIN
THE EXCESS OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET TO EACH LOT, WITH A ROAD ACCESS VARIANCE
OF PROPER'IY DESCRIBED AS Auditor's Subdivision No. 120, Lot 161,
. Property Identification No. 35-117-23-42-0005.
DATED: JULY 28, 1981
.
.
~
.
CIlY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PlANNING COtvMISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 1981
Page 1 of 6
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called the regular Planning Corrmission Meeting to order at 7:45 P.M.
. ROLL CALL:
In Attendance:
Staff:
Janet Leslie, Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne, Frank Reese, Bruce Benson;
Planner David Licht, Council Liaison Al Leonardo
In Absence: Richard Spe11IIJar} (Personal), Vem Watten (Vacation)
I
. APPROVAL OF "PlANNING C(M.1lS$ION' MINUIES DATED JULY 21. 1981:
On Page 1 of 3, in the seconq to last paragraph, Leslie moved, Gagne seconded,
that "and of ~ich was approved by both the Planning ConInission and the Council."
be deleted. fution carried 5-0.
Leslie moved, Reese seconded, that the Planning Cornnission minutes dated July 21,
1981 be approved as amended. fution carried 5-0.
JOHN CHAMBERS:
- Continuation of Public Hearing from July 7, 1981
The Planning Comnission took a couple minutes to read the Engineer's Report
dated July 30, 198L which was just received.
The petitioner, Jol:n1 Chambers, in trying to follow the procedure as set forth in
Shore~ 's Ordinance No. 77, (under Section 7, Conditional Uses , Subdivision 3,
Item C) offered to show the Planning ConInission a copy of a Contract for Deed in
order to show ownership of his property. However, the Planning Comnission re-
quested Mr. Chambers to show the Deed to the City staff, as they feel they them-
selves are not qualified to judge such a document. Further, the Planning ConInission
feels that the financial end of it is for the City staff to detennine and is not
really a matter for public infonnation. Further, that all of this should have
been cleared by the Staff before the public hearing.
Petitioner Chambers briefly explained his drawing, \\hich he suhnitted to the
Comnission this evening, in reference to the proposed six-plex.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, for the recoIImendation that the public hearing be
continUed until the staff has had an opportunity to review the petitioner's
request here. Further the Planning ConInission believes the concept of six units
is suitable on this piece of property; however, that does not mean it will or
will not be recorrmended for a Conditional Use Pennit. fution carried s....o.
Further, the question was asked of Mr. Chambers as to \\by he had not acknowledged
Planner Brad Nielsen's memorandum dated 28 May 1981 according to the recorrmended
changes; namely, (1) the garage structure be relocated to the west side of the
lot; (2) the width of the driveway be reduced to 24 feet; (3) an erosion control
and drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer; and (4) a satisfactory land-
~be~~. J
Mr. Chambers was advised to meet with the Planner the next morning.
ROUTING
'"
M..L Pl....L.
C~ PC-z-.
_ Pk-+.-
A....1.- E---L-
Agenda _
Disposo_
'" -9-€ I
tJc/
.
.
.
CITI OF SHORE\\OOD
Regular PlANNING CQtvMISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 1981 ~ .!. !! g I ~ ~
Page ~ of &
REVISIONS OF <n1PREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN - SHORE.WOOD,
REPORT NO.. 4 ;.. POLICYPLAN/DEVELOPMENI' F'RAME.Vl)RK
- Continuation of Public Hearing from July 21, 1981
In conjunction with the Plaming Comnission' s minutes dated July 21, 1981,
further discussion centered on Districts Nos. 2, 10, and 12, as well as on
Collectors Streets.
District No. 2: (Possible Rezoning from R-l to R-2 of Area East of
Howards Point Road)
Page 112.
Gagne moved, Leslie seconded, for the reconmendation that District No. 2
be left as it is in the book (Page 112), and not to increase the lot size.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to amend the motion to include that it is the
area east of Howards Point Road and south of Pine Bend that is not to change
but is to remain at low density residential. futions carried 5-0.
(See Plamer's memo dated 31 July 1981)
District No. 10: (Traffic Problem Cotmty Road 19/Country Club Road/Yellowstone
Trail/Lake Linden Drive/State Highway No. 7
On Page 118, under District 10, Reese moved, Gagne seconded, that the second
to last sentence in the second paragraph be changed so as to read ''Vacant
parcels adjacent to the shopping center property could be considered for
non-residential U$e." Motion carried 5-0.
District No. 12: (Christmas Lake Road area= 1-2 units)
On Page 119.
Benson moved, Gagne seconded, that District No. 12 stay as it is (see Page 119).
fution carried 4-:L. (Reese-nay)
Reese: I voted nay because basically there is quite a variety of densities in
that area. Many are already two units per acre.
Collectors Streets:
Page 92-93.
Plamer Licht stated that by law each City has to designate what streets are
collectors streets because it is partof the Metropolitan Land Plaming Act.
He stated further 'that we should acknowledge what streets we are aware of
now as possible collectors streets and qualify it by stating it is subject
to change.
Discussion followed in that if one collectors street is mentioned, then all
should be mentioned. There must be a total review-not just pick one or two
out; qualify the statement so as to be .able to add more in later. Licht
stated we can qualify it, but then simultaneously issue a proposal as to
where the collectors streets are going to be.
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHORE.WOOD
Regular PlANNING C<M1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 1981 ~ .!. !! !:! I ~ ~
Page 1. of &.
Collectors Streets (Continued):
Reese moved, Gagne seconded, to recorrmend that the City Planner amend the
collectors streets section on Pages 92-93 to infer that there will be further
study on this regarding collectors streets and that Christmas Lake Road, and the
County Road 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection be added. Further
that nothing will be taken out on Pages 92-93 and that the revisions will be
ready for the Planning Corrmissionmeeting on August 18th. M:>tion carried 5-0.
Reese rroved, Benson seconded, that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan public hearing
be continued to the August 18th meeting. M:>tion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING-MICHAEL PIERRO
5890 Christmas Lake Road
P.I.D. 35-117-23-42-0005
Chainnan Stover opened the meeting to the public at 9:27 P.M. by reading aloud
the legal notice as published in The Lake Minnetonka Sun on July 22, 1981. Sub-
sequently, petitioner Michael Pierro explained his request for a simple division
into two lots - that would have an excess of lR),(X)() square feet each - with a
road access variance of property described as Auditor's Subdivision No. 120,
Lot 161, P.I.D. 35-117-23-42-0005.
Chainnan Stover acknowledge a "To Whom It May Concern" letter signed by Pamela
M. Danswer that was received into City Hall on July 31, 1981, wherein Mrs. Danser
is giving permission for Mr. Pierro to subdivide and use the accessthrough Lots
1959 and 160. .
Chainnan Stover acknowledge a "To Whom It May concern" letter signed by Luther
Raines Smith and Cynthia A. Smith that was received into City Hall on July 31,
1981. They also give permission and backing to Mr. Pierro for his subdividing
Lot 161 and using the access through Lots 159 and 160 - the same 30 foot easement
granted to the owners of the back two parcels in Lot 159, which is in addition
to the 20 feet along the south line of Lot 159 that was sold to the back parcels.
Further, that Mr. Pierro has agreed to join in the maintenance agreement of the
roadway.
According to Mr. Pierro, there are only three potential users of the road; how-
ever, according to the Planning Corrmission, there are five or even six potential
users.
There is no public access to that lot. There is 33 feet but that is not standard.
The City Council approved the Smith lot split. Brad did recomnend a Planned Unit
Development, but Licht recorrmends denial
The public meeting was OPENED TO THE AUDIENCE for participation at 9: 36 P.M.
William F. Jolmson, 25 Division Street: He feels the Planning Corrmission should
be aware of how it affects all of Shorewood. There is no road access; the
people get to the houses off of Hillendale Road. His main concerns are density
and maintaining the present character of Shorewood. He says one of the reasons
he bought into Shorewood is because of the lR),(X)() square foot single-family
lots and he prefers it remains that way. He brought up the factor of Division
Street as one example where a lot was split about three years ago. The house
is still sitting there, but it is not being sold; it is substandard and is not.
saleable.
CI'lY OF SHOREVKX)D
Regular PlANNING <n1MISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 1981 ~!.!!!:!! ~ ~
Page 4 of 6
- -
. Public' Hearing, -' Michael', Pierro (Continued):
Jim Cabalka, 5885 Christmas Lake Road: Mr. Cabalka stated he is the owner just
east of Mr. Pierro on Christmas Lake Road and has no objection to the proposed
division nor to the easement; however, he wanted to know What tragedy trould
occur if the division is approved.
Planner Licht replied that anytime an easement is approved, then there is no
public access, lAhich is a major consideration. It then creates a substandard
situation. A mail carrier cannot go beyond a certain point as he cannot
trespass on or cross over on private property.
.
.
Leslie further explained that there can only be three houses to a private
road (City policy); there has to be a cul.,..de-sacor turn-around for fire and
police protection, as wrell as maintenance.
Upon further discussion, it seems that a 5o-foo~ easement was offered to the City
men the back of Lot 159 was split and that the! City Council has already approved
it. Smith's road is not on that. .
Pierro said he has a legal right to get to the Pack of his property.
The public meeting was CLOSED TO WE AUDIENCE for participation at 9:49 P.M.
Areas of discussion were that the Planning Cormrt-ssion does not want to place
Mrs. Danser's property in a position of being t.ni1able to use all of it; further,
there are five and possibly six potential users 1 of the road, not just three.
Although a private road placed on an easanent is not desirable or good planning,
there does not appear to be enough space for a public road and turnaround.
Benson: The Smith lot split happened in 1977-7? and it was clouded by the Lake
issue. Admittedly, it is poor planning and in $ome ways we're stuck with it. In
good conscience, I don't know how we can deny Mf. Pierro's similar request.
Licht: There was no guarantee when the buyer bOught the property that they would
be able to subdivide it. Always, there is the possibility that a person MAYor
MAY NOr be able to parcel off after buying a piece of property. He had no
guarantee when he purhcased that property that ltte was going to be able to sub-
divide it. Now somebody is trying to capitaliz$ on the availability of that back
lot. Are you going to turn the next one down? ,And then the next one?
Leslie: What is Pierro's plan or thought about i providing for a turnaround at the
end of that property? Pierro's property starts i at about Lot 161. Potentially,
it is not just Pierro's driveway.
Benson lIDVed, Gagne seconded, that the lot spli~ be approved with the road access
variance. t-btiona~~\~~y41~e~~J:e ayes (Gagne" Leslie, Benson); 1 pass (Stover);
Leslie: I am voting aye because of the precedent setting factor of the approval
back in 1978. I am voting for this in protest. It is extremely poor planning.
Stover: My reason for not voting is similar to Janet's; I don't like the road (as
proposed) in any way, but it seems to be the only way he could develop his land.
Th'roughquestioning and further discussion, it was detennined that the easement
through Mrs. Danser's land had been granted before Mr. Pierro owned his property;
therefore, he has always had access to the back half of his property through that
easement.
,.
.
CI'lY OF SHOREIDOD
Regular PlANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 1981 M !. !i !:! I ~ ~
Page 2. of ~
. PUBLIC HEARING':". GERALD J.. RODDY:
5385 St. Alban's Bay Road
Chairman Stover opened the meeting to the public at 10: 12 P.M. by reading a10ui
the legal notice as published HCrhe Lake Miilnetb'hka Sun on July 22, 1981, to
consider the request of Gerald J. ~o divide into three lots of approximately
20,cm (plus or minus) each, the property described as Registered Land Survey
No. 1083, Track C, Property Identification No. 25-117-23-34-0013.
However, the staff had not received any input in regards to Mr. Roddy's request
prior to this public hearing.
Therefore, Stover moved, Reese seconded, that this public hearing be continued
until the staff has had opportunity to review the proposaL M:>tion carried 5-0.
However, Ibnald F. Jakel, 5405 St. Alban's Bay Road, queried as to What kind of
a driveway was .going .to be put in; he does not want dust from .either dirt or
crushed rock.
David Thiede, 20145 Excelsior Boulevard, was just interested as to "INhere the
placement of things were going to be.
REPORTS:
- Benson reported that Country Club Road is up for bids for resurfacing; it
seans repairs were started last year rot not completed.
- Leonardo stated that priorities are going to have to be considered. He wondered
"lNhy Country Club Road and not some other areas that. are as badly in need of
repair if not more so.
- Leonardo reported that the Cmmcil had directed the Planner to check with
the Park Corrmission as to "lNhen they trould like to have him at a Park Comnission
Meeting. for input of Freanan Park.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREW)()D
Regular PlANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
'fuesday, August 4, 1981 M !. !i !:l I ~ ~
Page ~ of ~
REPORTS (Continued):
- Leonardo reported that the Engineer had been directed to discontinue any
further study to correct the drainage problem at Crescent Beach. The reason
is that the cost would be around $30,CX)().OO, and there is no help from the
Department of Natural Resources or from anyone else to fix the problem.
- Stover mentioned that the Planning Comnission will be glad to give input in
regards to Freeman Park; however, they don't feel they have enough input from
the Park Comnission as to ~t it is they want from the P1arming Comnission.
anIER MA'ITERS:
Chainnan Stover announced that Jim Miller had requested another postponement of
his public hearing to September 2, 1981. In his letter dated July 17, 1981,
Mr. John A. Miller states that they will have the property staked so that it can
be viewed well in advance of the meeting.
STUDY SESSION:
Chairman Stover asked for input as to \\hat to study at the Study Session of
the P1arming Corrmission meeting on August 18th. It was detennined that the
GARAGE issue is to be studied and it is to be studied separately from the Home
Occupancy issue. The study of garages will be relative to a possible proposed
garage ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese moved, Gagne seconded, that the regular P1arming Conmi.ssion meeting of
August 4, 1981 adjourn at 10:50 P.M. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
.4; (l/f
Dart Fahrenbruch, Secretary
CI'IY OF SHQREW)()D
Regular PlANNING CXM1ISSION Meeting
'fuesday, August Hi, 1981
STUDY SESSION B
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 Country Club Road
7:30 P.M.
Page 1 of 1:-
.
MINUTES
CAlL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called
7:38 P.M.
e regular Planning Corrmission Meeting to order at
ROLL CAlL:
Present: Stover, Benso , Leslie" ~gne, Spellman (arrived 7:47 PM)
Absent: Reese (~) riJJiM., (~)
)
Also Present: Liaison Leonardo and Councilman Rascop
APPROVAL OF PLANNING <XM1ISSION MINUl'ES OF AUGUST 4, .1981:
Correction: Page 5, OAK RIIX;E ESTATES - 2ND ADDITION
"in order to now increase the size of Lot 6 to include Lot 5
and part of Lot 4, there v.."Ou1d have to be a public hearing
to approve the final plat."
.
CONTINUATION OF PUBliC HEARING - REVISIONS OF THE CCMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PlAN OF SHOREtrnD :.. REPORT' NO.4
Chainnan Stover pointed out that the Planning Corrmission has done all they
can at this point. ''The Collector Streets have been listed and a request
has been presented to Planner Licht asking Metro Council for an extension
of time (to September 30th) in t\hich to rewrite the review of Pages 92 and
93 regarding the Collector Streets. The Planner is to reword these pages
so as to satisfy both What Shorewood wants it to say and still have Metro
Council's approval. After the completion of these requests, the Comprehen...;.
sive Land Use Plan is to be read by'th'e Plaming Corrmissionbefore sub-
mitting to the CounciL"
Leslie moved, Stover seconded, that we reconrnend to the Council approval of
Districts Nos. 2, 10, and 12 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and to
reserve approval of the section - Collector Streets, Pages 92 - 93, upon the
Planner's re-write. MJtion carried.
STUDY SESSION- GARAGES:
Due to the number of requests for additions to present garages, the Council
has asked the Planning Conmission to study the issues relative to a possible
proposed garage ordinance.
Reference was made to Ordinance No. 77.II'Gar~e', Private: An accessory
building, or part of a principal building, used primarily for the parking and
storage of automobiles owned or operated by the residents of the dwelling
located on the lot onwch the garage is located and having a capacity of not
more than three motor-driven vehicles for each dwelling unit located on such lot."
,
Stover stated that it is difficult to write a garage ordinance that in no way
reflects the use of the garage. ,How do we detennine a garage from an
accessory building? If you term it a garage, does it only house cars? The
study means a.ttacking portions of Ordinance No. 77. We need to reconmend
guidelines for garages.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, August 18, 1981
STUDY SESSION - M I NUT E S
Page ~ of 1
.
After discussion and referral to a proposed draft to Ordinance No. 77 (11/79
by Attomey Kelly), Section 11, Subdivision No.9, it was detennined to approach
the issue by going ahead with some of the details and working upon it rntil it
becomes refined.
Leslie recorrmended that the following criteria of six items be presented to the
Plamer for guidelines as to garages, andi then to discuss the results with the
full Plarming Corrmission and Plamer. '
1. Accessory Buildings and Garages.
2. Maxirrn.:m 1000 Square Feet for One Stnlcture.
3. No rrnre than 10% of Lot Area.
4. Not to Exceed the Size of the Primary Building.
5. Not to Exceed 25 % of the Rear Yard.
6. Meet All Setbacks and Yard Space Requirements.
Benson moved, Gagne seconded, to table the Study Session regarding garages to
the next meeting so as to have input from Reese, Watten, and the Planner.
MJtion carried.
.
REPORT :
~rncil, Rascop
Approval was given by the Corncil to fix Corntry Club Road.
-Street Parking
4~hour parking in roads or towed away at owner's expense.
72-hours emerging (storms) v..':i.ll follow on the meeting of the 24th
-Reports on Roads:
Study of Christmas Lake problem, 82nd and Mill Street. The Corncil will
receive a traffic report in that area.
AIlJOURNMENl' :
Leslie rrnved, Gagne seconded, that the meeting be adjoumed at 10:07 P.M.
MJtion carried 5~.
ctfully submitted,
~
oberta Dybvik
Acting Secretary
RD:dcf
,
.
.
~,
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 1:. of &
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNl'RY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CAlL. TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover _ called the Meeting of the regular Planning COI1lIIission to
order at 7:42 P.M. on September 1, 1981.
ROlL CAlL:
Present: Vem Watten, Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne (arr 9:30 pn), Frank Reese, Richard Spellman
Also present: Councilman Al Leonardo, Planner Brad Nielsen
APBROVAI.2QF~~'FLANNING CCM1ISSION" MINUTES DATED AtnJST 18, 1981:
Leslie rrnved, Stover seconded, for approval of the Planning COI1lIIission minutes
dated August 18, 1981 as corrected; namely, the date of the minutes be changed
from August 19, 1981 to August 18, 1981. Further, that tmder Roll Call, Reese
and Watten be noted for being absent because of business. Further, tmder
"Street Parking", "emerging" should be changed to "emergency" and "will follow
on the meeting of the 24th" should be deleted. M:>tion carried 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
-continuation of Jim Miller/Shorewood Forest
Approval of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Lot 52,
Auditor's Subdivision 133.. . into Four Lots and an Outlot
Chainnan Stover read aloud the letter dated August 28, 1981 from John A. Miller,
wherein he has requested another postponement of the public hearing. The
reason being that they are doing some additional engineering work on the plat.
Stover explained that this public hearing was continued from Jtme 2, 1981 at
the request of the Planning Cornnission, and, subsequently, it was continued
from July, August, and September to October at the request of Mr. John A. Miller.
Tl1rough discussion, it was detennined that the Planning COI1lIIission has the
authority to infonn Mr. Miller that this public hearing no longer be postponed.
Spellman moved that the Planning Connrl.ssion base its decision on this situation
on the evidence on hand without the staking and viewing. Benson seconds. for
discussion. After discussion, the rrntion was defeated. 6-nays; l-aye(Spellman).
Watten moved, Leslie seconded, that the Planning Cornnission Chainnan advise
Mr. Miller to have all necessary infonnation available at the next regular
Planning Contnission meeting on Tuesday, October 6. Further, this infonnation
should include the staking and on-site inspection of the property prior to
the October 6 meeting. Otherwise, the matter will be discontinued, as the
Planning Contnission plans to make a decision in one way or another on October 6.
M:>tion carried. 6 ayes; 1 nay (Spellman)
ROUTING
M..:.L. P 1..1-
c~ PC...'!-
Pk-Z-
-
A.-L E..-L-
Agenda _
Disposo_
--
1-fG'-g;
4
.
.
,
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page .f of &
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
- Roger Hedtke, 5530 Howards Point Road
Chainnan Stover annolmced that Mr. Hedtke had notified City Hall to take him
off the Agenda since he tmderstands he does not need a garage variance.
PUBLIC HFARING:
-continuation of John Chambers
Conditional Use Pennit to Build One Six-Plex
Mr. John Chambers was absent; however, he had notified City Hall to say he had
complied with all the instructions and has taken a Contract For Deed to
Attorney Gary Larson to show he owns the property. Chainnan Stover confirmed
that Attorney Larson had verified Mr. Chambers as having control of the property.
Further, Larson reconmended that Mr. Chambers furnish a Letter of Credit and is
in agreement with Brad Nielsen's report dated 27 August 1981, on Page 2, in that
a Letter of Credit need not be submitted until a Building Pennit is issued.
However, this is simply ~.. staff reconmenoation; if the City feels it is necessary
to require the evidence at this time, then Mr. Chambers must comply with the
City's request. Further, Larson prefers that the Letter of Credit be based upon
the totaL cost of the building, and suggested the Planning Corrmission place a
time limit for completion of the building.
Planner Brad Nielsen reported that Mr. Chambers has subnitted all the infonnation
required by the ordinance with the exception of the Letter of . Credit, which
should be required at the time of the Building Pennit. However, if the City
requires the Letter of Credit prior to the issuance of the Building Pennit, then
Mr. Chambers must comply. Mr. Chambers plans to sod all of the area that is
not covered.
There was discussion .of the drainage problem. The City Engineer didn't feel it
was serious enough to hold up this project, but in the future there may be a
problem if conmercial use were to come in.
Leslie Iroved, Reese seconded,th<;Lt a Conditional Use Pennit be approved subject
to written consent by Mr. Chambers that he is willing to be taxed for a storm
water study involving that irrmediate area.
Reese Iroved, Stover seconded, that we amend Leslie's Irotion in that we
reconmend the Conditional Use Peinti.t for a six-plex be approved for the property
owned or controlled by Mr. Chambers subject to the following conditions:
I. that he express written c<i>l1sent to participate in the cost of a storm
water study for that general area;
2. that he \\Uuld provide a perfonnance bond with. the landscaping plan
for the parking area and the area around the building which incluies
shrubbery, etc.;
3. that he would agree to have the building ready for occupancy. one year
from the date of the taking out the Building Pennit;
.
CITY OF SHOREIDOD
Regular PLANNING CCM{[SSION Meeting
Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 1 of &
4. that he would provide the City Clerk and all appropriate staff
and other consultants with a financing comnitment prior to ob-
taining the Building Pennit; and
5. that he would provide a fence on the west line as per his drawing
of August 4th.
M,)tion carried 7-0, with Leslie agreeing to the amendment as roved by Reese.
PUBLIC.HFARING:
-continuation .of Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Shorewood
Report No. 4 - Policy Plan/Development Framework
Collector streets were the focus of discussion. For example, mo is it that
designates a street as a collector street (The Metro Council; however, the
City can based on traffic volume.) The purpose of designating a collector
street is so that for future development or improvement of the street, it can
be developed or upgraded to a higher standard than just a local street, and
it usually includes an additional right of way width and often pavement width.
The way that they are chosen is primarily by spacing and/or existing traffic
volumes.
.
The Planner gave an explanation as to my this route (from County Rood 19/
Country Club Road/Lake Lind Drive to State Highway 7) was addressed by the
Planner. It was raised as a problem in the early planning work that was done
and subsequently two alternatives were suggested as a remedy; namely, (1) to
upgrade it to some sort of collector street, or (2) figure out some way to
discourage the traffic.
Leslie conmented that in reality, whether we want it to be or not, it is a
collector street, and that all of the streets should be specifically mentioned
and put in the ordinance.
Reese roved, Benson seconded, that (per Planner Nielsen's memo dated 28 August
1981), the reconmendation to the Council be that the following be added to the
end of Paragraph 2, Page 93, as follows:
". . .Country Drive and Yellowstone Trail too discourage other than
local traffic. It IIUst be noted that the two suggestions stated
above may not be the only alternatives for resolving the problem.
Due to the potential for high traffic volumes and possible result-
ing impact on the neighborhood along this route, future classifi-
cation status requires further detailed study of alternatives."
M,)tion carried 7-0.
,
It was mentioned that from County Rood 19, Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail,
Lake Linden Drive to State Highway 7 should not be considered as a collector
street. However, the Planner explained that it is used as a collector street
and that is why it got put into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
.
CI1Y OF SHOREWJOD
Regular PlANNING C<M1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 4 of 6
- -
Continued from Previous Page:
PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Shorewood
A gentleman from the auiience stated that it is actually a "through" street
used by those enroute from Chaska, Jonathan, Mound, etc., and thus not strictly
used by Shorewood residents. Eventually, it is going to have to be upgraded.
Gene Clapp, 24115 Yellowstone Trail, wanted to know if the City benefits in any
way by calling it a collector street. The Planner replied that it is just a
way of addressing the traffic problem. Potentially, if a street is designated
as a collector street, then in the future it would be upgraded by having a
wider street. Depending on the jurisdiction of the road (whether it be county,
state, or whatever - in this case, it is a City street), there is not necessarily
a direct financial benefit to the City in tenns of finding.
PUBLIC HEARING:
-continuation of Gerald R. Roddy
Subdivision into Two Lots, if Not into Three Lots
Registered Land Survey No. 1083, Tract C (5385 St. Alban's Bay Road)
Mr. Roddy explained that he would rather have two lots, as he feels it would be
better for everyone, especially his neighbors. It is zoned R-3, mich means
he could build a duplex or double bmgalow.
.
Spellman lIDved, leslie seconded, that because he is complying with all of the
Council's requirements that we accept this subdivision into two lots. M,)tion
carried 7-0. (Note: See Brad Nielsen's meIOO,ldated August 28, 1981.)
SJ:DRE.VO)D PROFESSIONAL/MEDICAL BUILDING: (Shorewood Properties)
-Request for Building Pennit
Planning Coomission to Review...
(a) Site Plan
(b) Landscape Plan
(c) Drainage Plan
(d) Building Plan
Mr. Raymond D. Jones, Relocation Consultant for Realty Consultants, Edina, and
a Partner of ShorewoodProperties' Professional/Medical Building, stated he had
presented preliminary plans to the Planner and Engineer, and, subsequently,
Shorewood Properties made corrections according to their reconmendations.
The Planner stated he has not seen an actual drainage plan. However, he reported
that the Engineer says it seems to be alright. The Planner further stated
that everything in the request seems to be fine; that Shorewood Properties
mcxlified their plans in accordance to the City's concems including landscaping.
The original Plan had two variances, but Shorewood Properties roodified their
plans so as to have no variances.
,
Spellman lIDved, Watten seconded, that we reconmend approval of the preliminary
plans as suhnitted, subject to approval of the Engineer and Building Official.
M,)tion carried 7-0.
.
CI'lY OF SHORENlX)D
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 5 of 6
- -
AMESBURY-WEST :
-Request for Pennanent Sign (P.U.R.D.)
Mr. Dave g~ of La.ndplan, representing Amesbury-West, explained that the
sign, measuring from the outside of the frame structure (rather than the sign
itself) is 59 square feet. He says the reason for the size of the sign is
because of the style of lettering, mich needs to be larger in order to be
clearly seen. The sign is not for the purpose of advertising but merely for
identifying as a means of pointing out a location. This sign will be on
private property located in the right-of-way of a public street. The sign
will be placed in a boulevard fashion. He believes this can be done because
of the flexibility in the P.U.R.D. Amesbury wants to maintain as much woodsite
as possible; the visibility is better aesthetically. The maintenance w:>uld be
taken care of by Amesbury-West.
.
There was concern of whether or not the dimensions met the sign ordinance.
Maximum requirement is 32 square feet, whereas this is 36.7 square feet.
Spellman was concerned about the future, such as something other than this
subdivision. What about putting a sidewalk down this street in the future?
Spellman moved that it be recorrmended to the Council that this sign be turned
down because it is in a public right-of-way. M:>tion failed for lack of a second.
Stover referredtoiOrdi1p.arice No. 77, page 11, Section 12, Item G-1-5, regarding
Special Provisions on S~gns.
Reese has reservations ~bout putting in a designated right-of-way due to a
precedence setting fact<!>r, but agrees with Stover that it would be providing us
with a nicer looking entry.
Leslie moved, Reese sec<;mded, that the request for a pennanent sign be granted
to Amesbury-West, with the stipulation that it be no more than 32 square feet
to the outside frame. Itfotion carried 6-1 (Spellman'-'flaY), .
I
Spellman wanted it referred to the City Attorney.
Reese moved, Watten sec<imded, to amend Leslie's motion, to recorrmend to the
Council to look at the ~ircumstances involved with the maintenance and legal
hazards of private pro~rty on a city-owned right-of...way. M:>tion carried 6-1.
(Spellman-nay). Leslie I agrees to Reese's amendment.
Leslie moved, Watten se~onded, that the Homeowner's Association be required to
maintain this signage area in this public access and that maintenance and
legal implications be i~cluded in the developnent contract between Amesbury-West
and the City of ShoreWJCj>d. M:>tion carried 7-0.
i
,
.
CI'lY OF SHORElm)
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSICN Meeting
'fuesday, S~ 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 6 of 6
- -
. INFORMAL DISCUSS ON:
-Daniel J. Randa 1
24655 Srnithtown Road (Lot Division)
Mr. Daniel Randa 1 understood he did not have to split his lot as the lot
seems to already be divided. Therefore, he did not appear before the
P1arming Comniss on.
INFORMAL DISCUSS ON:
-Roger Hedtke
5530 Howards Po nt Road
(Variance)
Mr. Roger Hedtke determined that a variance of any kind is not necessary;
therefore, he di~[ not appear before the P1arming Coomission.
REPORTS:
Stover reported hat the Co\m.ci1 wants copies of other Cities' ordinances and
the P1arming r'fYr'Ih;ssion' s recoomendation of an ordinance regarding the roving
in/out of houses within the City.
The Park Corrmiss on Meeting of July 31 was postponed out of respect of
Mayor Jom Baird s passing away.
.
alliER MATTERS:
None
AllJOURNMENl' :
Reese moved, Sto' er seconded, for adjournment of the regular P1a:rtni.ng
Comnission meeti1(1g of September 1, 1981 at 9:50 P.M. Motion carried 7-0.
Respectfully subhitted,
!::::>~
CF~
Secretary
DF
,
.
,
,
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING C<M1ISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, SEPI'EMBER 15, 1981
Page 1. of 1
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Stover called the regular Plarming Coomission Meeting to order at 74:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Bruce Benson (8: 00 P.M.), Janet Leslie,
Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne
Also Present: Council Liaison Al Leonardo
Planner Brad Nielsen
Absent: Richard Spellman t-P~)
APPROVAL OF PLANNING CC>>1MISSION MINUTES DA'IED SEPIEMBER.l, 1981:
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to approval the Planning Corrmission minutes dated
September 1, 1981 as written. llition carried 5-0.
STUDY DISCUSSION:
- GARAGES
Plarmer Brad Nielsen suggested the following items should be considered: Look at
how garages are addressed now in the ordinance; how they are to be proposed in
the new ordinance; and look at various problems - for example, the typical lot
sizes based upon the ordInance. It is really difficult to understand why there are
any variances at all. Some variances are given because somebody doesn't want to
destroy a tree; however, the root system is such that it is uprooted and dies anyway.
Thus, the variance wasn't really necessary. There are \\eaknesses in the ordinance
draft: s-alar. access and boat houses are two examples.
Plarmer suggested that the ordinance regarding buildings and accessory uses be
examined so that the whole picture of accessory uses and not just buildings be
~.:. s;~:;;:~.c;.~. ;...~~.~~~;ng.eth..s. .i-.t~I;~~.:;.:. ~..'.:..~. ha. ~ f.;C~ic:al1Y
requested that garages ""sfuhed s~paratel Y anda~tt from bbIre occupancY. FurtJ:,er,
she thought the; Councilwaslookingfo!' some results ;i.e, perhaps an interim
ordinance which addresses 'the 'problem'at~hand.
Plarmer reconmend.ed, while the Plarming Corrmission studies the garage ordinance,
that they apply the standards to each residential zone. What is an allowable
encroachment and when is it allowable? What are the mnnber and sizes of
accessories allowable? In terms of an ordinance, other accessories carmot be
ignored. Setbacks and allowable lot coverage have to be considered.
He stated that the "ideal" lot, is 40,000 square feet, isrectClTIgular, and has the
lea~t street frontage.. The more. street frontage a heuse has ,the rroreexpensi ve
it is, and then there is 'less square foot~ge on -which to build. Make -a list of
typical uses. iJlhat:.kindsof.i1ses .aretyp,ucal.:,.'perinit;tecd' uses? . Garages and sheds
are mostcoIlll11On. There can be a fine line in distinguishing between a garage and
a shed. Refer to_ the first draft dated October 1980 of Shorewood's proposed Zoning
Ordinance, on Pages I-9 and I-23 for the Ordinance's definitions of "Garage-Private"
and "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment."
.
.
,
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CC>>1MISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, SEPI'EMBER 15, 1981 - MINlITES
Page ~ of 3
Planner says that inasmuch as the Planning Corrmission has been told to ignore
home occupancy at this time, he still recomnends the City must be aware of the
use of accessories. Limit the totaLcim0uot of square footage to 1,000 square
feet and limit the mnnber of accessories within that 1,000 square feet. Anything
beyond that, we suggest a Conditional Use Permit, with the usual procedure - a
public hearing by the Planning Corrmission with approval by the Council. The
reason is that once it exceeds 1,000 square feet, it then becomes questionable
as to what purpose that amount of storage space is going to be used. Many cities
have had a problem with that. In many cases, the intent is home occupations.
Before issuing a Building Permit, the Planner suggested that the Planning
Corrmission be assured of having adequate space for a second garage and that it
meets the setback requirements. Make sure that every lot has adequate space for
two cars, although only one or none may be wanted at the moment. The Federal
Home Association requires proof of two spaces within the setback for car parking
or a double garage. The garage does not have to be built, but to allow space for
two cars. A main concern is that vehicles not be parked on the street.
Members of the Planning Corrmission expressed concern over the possibility of
working towards the point where restrictions would be too strict, allmving no
room for individuality to a property owner.
Liaison Councilman Leonardo thought the Council would be agreeable to discussing
garages together with the other issues such as home occupancy; that he could
understand why the Planner was emphasizing studying garages and other accessories
as a whole rather than separately.
Reese moved, Stover seconded, to table discussion on the garage ordinance for
the purpose of enlarging the discussion of the zoning ordinance to include the
chapters specifically applicable to garages, accessory buildings, accessory
uses, etc.; as well as the review and use of definitions in the ordinance; and
reviewal of an implementation schedule. (See: Zoning Ordinance, First Draft
dated October 1980, Pages 1-9 and 1-23). ~tion carried 7-0.
HOUSE ORDINANCE:
Chairman Stover explained that a home had been rroved into Shorewood on Wild Rose
Lane within the past couple rronths. The owners had not notified City Hall and had
not applied for any kind of permit. The neighbors were upset to disover a house
had been rroved in. The problem arises in that the Ordinance is not clear as to
whether or not it is permissible to move a house in/out of Shorewood.
Watten moved that we don't allow (1) relocated homes, or (2) mobile homes into
Shorewood. Gagne seconded for discussion. ~tion carried 3-2. Aye: Reese,
Gagne, Watten. Nay: Leslie, Stover.
~ular homes were discussed along with relocated and rrobile homes. Reese feels
that aesthetics is the main difference between modular, mobile, and relocated
homes. Watten says relocated homes present many problems: wide loads, right-of-
ways, aesthetics, compatability with surrounding.:area, zoning, updating of
electrical wiring, etc. Planner stated that State law requires a relocated house
must meet the newest ordinance. Gagne and Reese are for nice modular homes. Leslie
is concerned on being too restrictive, that avenues must be left open so as to have
.
,
,
CI'IY OF SHOR.E\roD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 - MINUlES
Page 3 of 3
- -
a variety of housing. However, of relocated, mobile, or modular homes, she
could only vote for the mobile home provided that they meet very strong
criteria in size, quality, etc. Sheialso feels if a house is moved in, it
should require a Conditional Use Permit and the mover should be licensed and
bonded. Stover voted nay because tmder controlled conditions (no damage to
streets, utilities, trees, etc.) and 'with the relocated building meeting all
requirements (building codes, setbacks and ordinances applying to all new
homes), relocated homes maybe a good way of providing altemative/affordable
housing possibilities.
REPORTS:
Stover: =Ron Johnson, Shady Hills Circle. The City is going to prosecute for
violation of the zoning ordinance.
=The Medical/Professional Building was approved.
=Amesbury West did change their sign to conform to the ordinance. They
agreed to include the maintenance of the sign in the Amesbury Homeowners
Association contract with the City; that is, Amesbury West would do the
maintenance work on the sign.
Leonardo: -Mike Pierro was approved over the objections of the Planner, Engineer,
and some of the Planning Commission.
=Gordon Christensen, Boulder Bridge Road: He will take down a shed and
put up a car port - tabled for more input from the neighbor.
Planner informed that ordinances are enforceable, but sometimes questionable.
There has to be a good valid reason as to why the ordinance was drawn in the first
place, in order to enforce it.
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese moved, Gagne seconded, to adjoum the regular Planning Corrmission meeting
of Tuesday, September 15, 1981, at 10:15 P.M. Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
/{aa;C
Dart Fahrenbruch
Recording Secretary
DF
CI'IY OF SHOREOOOD
PUBLIC "ON-SITE INSPECTION"
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1981
10:00 A.M.
.
NOTICE
OF
ON - SITE INSPECTION
.
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING C<:M1ISSION/COUNCIL WILL MEET ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3,
1981, AT 10:00 A.M. ON THE SITE OF JAMES W. MILLER PROPER'IY LOCATED
GENERALLY ALONG THE FAST SIDE' OF EUREKA ROAD BETWEEN NELSINE DRIVE AND
------ - -
ORCHARD CIRCLE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ON-SITE INSPECTION RElATIVE
TO THE REQ]EST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE PROPER'IY
DESCRIBED AS Lot 52, Auditor's Sulxlivision 133, Hennepin Cotmty, State of
Minnesota, into four lots and an outlot.
DATED: September 22, 1981
t
CITY OF SHOREOOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
'fuesday, OCTOBER 6, 1981
Page 1. of 4
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNl'RY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called the regular Planning Comnission Meeting to order at
7: 45 P. M. on 'fuesday, October 6, 1981-
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bob Gagne, Frank Reese, Vem Watten, Richard Spellman, and Kristi Stover.
Staff: Cotmci1 Liaison A1Leonardo
Absent: Bruce Benson (Personal), Janet Leslie (Business)
Staff: Planner Brad Nielsen (Vacation)
APPROVAL OF "PLANNING CXM1ISSION" MINlJIES DATED SEPl'EMBER 15, 1981:
Gagne moved, Watten seconded, that the minutes of the September 15, 1981 Planning
Conmission Meeting be approved as corrected; namely...
Page 1 of 1: The meeting. was called to order at 7: 45 P.M. and
not 74:45 P.M.
Page 3 of 3: Under Leonardo's report, Gordon Christensen's address
should be Birch Bluff Road, and not Boulder Bridge Road.
Motion carried 5-0.
.
PUBLIC HEARING:
- Continuation of Jim Mil1erlShorewood Forest
Auditor's Subdivision 133.. . into Four Lots and an Outlot
Chairman Stover annomced that an "Ort-Site Inspection" notice had been posted
and that several Planning Corrmission and Comci1 members had gone to the site
located generally along the east side of Eureka Road between Ne1sine Drive and
Orchard Circle on Saturday, October 3, 1981 at 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Jim Miller gave a brief history of the appoximate 11-acre site that he and
his father, Mr. John Miller, own and explained the wetlands problem encomtered;
namely, that Shore~od' s City sewer and tax records differ from Shorewood' s Wet-
lands Map. For this reason, he hired Barr Engineering to survey the bomdaries.
Furthermore, subsequent to Engineer Norton's letter dated June 18, 1981-at the
request of the City-Mi11er staked the limits of the Type 3 wetlands per Barr
Engineering's drawings and the limits of the wetlands as shown by City Ordinance
No. 70.
,
Discussion followed that should the proposed project include grading below the
elevation of 931.5 feet, a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Pennit ~uld be
required for flood plain development and is subject to amendment by the Board
of Managers (of MCWD). Drainage problems could occur and must be guarded against.
The area in question drains into Lake Minnetonka. and it l.\OU1d not be good for
the natural drainage to be upset. Engineer Norton's letter to the City dated
June 2, 1981 was referred to regarding Types 2 and 3 wetlands, vegetation and
drainage. Further, in Norton's letter, it is stated that ".. .to show a wetlands
line on a drawing which differs from the City's wetlands line does not mean the
City's line is in error." Ordinance No. 70, an ordinance relating to low lands,
CITY OF SHOREOOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
'fuesday, OCTOBER 6, 1981 - M I NUT E S
Page ~ of ~
.
marshes, wetland and lands adjoining meandered lakes and water courses regulat-
ing development of such lands and providing for the issuance of pennits thereof
was referenced; more specifically, Section 6-Land Development and Platting.
Following the on-site inspection, members of the Planning Corrmission detennined
that as lay people they could not see any reason to challenge Shore~od' swetland
botmdaries.
.
Watten comnented that the City and Mr. Miller differ in opinion as to where the
wetland boundaries are; however, that the Planning Corrmission can only base its
opinion upon the City's ordinance and the line as established thereof.
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, that the application be denied because it is
believed that we should abide by the line established by our wetland ordinance,
and, further, there are not enough lots available for the construction of the
four residential houses plus an outlot. Motion carried 5-0.
Discussion followed in which Watten emphasized that the reconrnendation for
denial of the application is based upon the applicant's request of "dividing
into four lots and an outlot. "
It also was mentioned that Ordinance No. 70 does not refer to different types
of wetlands, such as 2 and 3; however, Engineer Norton makes reference to
varied wetlands in his letter/report to the Council dated June 2, 1981.
Chairman Stover assured Mr. Jim Williams in the audience that his petition/letter
which was signed by neighbors ~uld be forwarded to the Council if the matter
were to be continued by Mr. Miller.
PUBLIC HEARING:
- Daniel John Randall, 24655SmithtownRoad
Chairman Stover read aloud the public notice as it appeared in The Lake Minne-
tonka Sun on Wednesday, September 16, 1981, for the applicant's request for a
simple division with a square footage variance of property described as Auditor's
Subdivision 133, Lot 36 and Parts of Lots 48 and 49, P.I.D. 33-117-23-13-0017.
.
Chainnan Stover stated the Planning Conmission had received the Planner's Report
dated 2 October 1981 regarding Randall's proposed lot split and a letter dated
October 6, 1981 from Mr. B. Witrak, President of Minnetonka Country Club, just
this evening.
Planner Nielsen, in his report, could not recorrmend approval of the lot split in
view of the variances involved in the request. The only suggestion offered at
this time is that the applicant consider the possibility of acquiring additional
land to the west from the Country Club owners. Mr. Witrak' s letter in general
suggests that because of suburban development, golf courses are often forced to
sell because of increased real-estate taxes, sewer, water, and street assessments,
etc. If Randall is allowed a variance, then the Minnetonka Country Club ~uld
expect the Council to grant them the same zoning variance, of having smaller
lot sizes than the current 40,000 size, as the smaller size ~uld be more eco-
nomically advantageous in selling lots when dividing up the golf course. Mr.
Witrak states that giving pennission to Randall to divide ~uld be a precedent
setting factor.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PlANNING CXM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, OCTOBER 6, 1981 -.,' M I' NUT E S
Page 1 of ~
.
PUBLIC HEARING:
- Daniel John, Randall_ 24655, Smithtown ,Road, < Continued .. from · Previous " Page) :
Public hearing was opened to the audience for participation at 8: 14 P.M.
Jan Towne, 24740 Smithtown Road, object to Randall's splitting and
agreed with Mr. Witrak's letter.
Public hearing closed approximately 8: 22 P.M. for audience participation.
Mr. Dan Randall said he was open to suggestions as to what they can do for
housing as he and his wife to be will be living there with his parents.
Through discussion, it was stated a duplex could not be built as it is zoned
R-l. Further, a second house would not be suitable because of the zoning law.
It was suggested Mr. Randall meet with the Planner for further guidance.
Spellman moved, Gaf' e seconded, for the recorrmendation that the CotmCil, deny
the request of the variance because it does not comply with the R-1 zoning.
Motion carried 5-0
.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
- Oak Ridge Estates - 2nd Addition
Joe Gorecki proposed that the City allow them to go ahead and subdivide the
tmdeve10ped balance of Oak Ridge Estates property into (a) 40,000 s~re foot
lots with (2) no variance requests, (3) retain the R-1 zoning, and (4) comply
with all ordinances. He presented a sketch - and asked if it were sufficient
for an informal discussion.
QJestions arose as to why there was a $75.00 fee charged since it was merely
an informal discussion. What is considered informal and formal discussions was
discussed. Are any discussions considered formal when not a public hearing?
How, why, and when are fees charged to an applicant? There seems to be a
problem with semantics.
As discussion continued, it appeared that Mr. Gorecki wished to obtain approval
for the one lot enlargement. Reese explained the necessary procedure; also,
that a lot may not be created from one platted lot in combination with part of
an outlot.
Ibroughdiscussion, it was determined that Mr. Gorecki should consult the
Planner and I or staff. Mr. Gore~ki taped his portion of the meeting.
,
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
- MatthewJ~ Phillippi
21155 Minnetonka Boulevard
Combination and a Division with a Square Footage Variance
Mr. Phillippi did not appear before the Planning Corrmission.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular' PlANNING C<M-1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, OCTOBER 6, 1981 - M IN UT E S
Page !t of ~
.
REPORTS:
COUNCIL: Mayor Rascop reported that the Council had approved the Freeman
Park Plan for $3,200.00 with the provision that the rroney is
available.
= The Council is agreeable to having the Planning Corrmission study
the garage ordinance for the purpose of enlarging the discussion
of the zoning ordinance to include the chapters specifically
applicable to garages, accessory buildings, accessory uses, etc.;
as well as the review and use of definitions in the ordinance;
and reviewal of an implementation schedule. (See: Zoning
Ordinance, First Draft dated October 1980, Pages 1-9 and 1-23).
This is per rrotion of Planning COIllTIission Meeting dated the 15th
of September, 1981.
= The Council wants the Planning Corrmission to re-address the
House Re-Location issue.
.
OIHER MATTERS:
None
AUJOURNMENT :
Reese rroved, Watten seconded, to adjourn the regular Plarming Conmission
Meeting of October 6, 1981 at 9:03 P.M. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
;P~
Dart Fahrenbruch
Recording Secretary
,
ROUTING
M-L PI-L-
c-L pc-1-
_ Pk-L
A { E I
Agenda.~
Dispos ./o-lrI-KI
-(
~
.
.
.
I/t. - I z.(f"~;t'"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CCM-1ISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, 0CI'fJBER20, 1981
Page 1 af 1
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNI'RY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M.INUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Staver called the regular Planning Conmission Meeting to' arder at 8:47 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Kristi Staver, Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Bmce Benson, Janet Leslie,
Richard Spellman; (',oUl'l.cil Liaisan Leonardo. Bob Gagne was appointed to'
the Council effective Octaber 13, 1981.
APPROVAL OF "PLANNING c:cM1ISSION'1 MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 6., 1981:
Spellman moved, Reese seconded. that. the regu1arPlanni~ Canmission minutes dated
Octaber 6, 1981 be appraved as written. Motion carriep. 6-0.
. STUDY DISCUSSION: I
- HOUSE ORDINANCE (RELOCATING): I
Upon discussion, Reese roved, Leslie seconded, far the recomnend.ation that the
Plarming Corrmissian discuss the "relacatable homes" ar 'nance and that robi1e homes
is nat to' be included in the discussion af the ardinan e.
Follawing are concerns that were expressed. Is there need far an ardinance?
"Relacated hames" should be considered as being conven ional homes that have been
built on a faundation and withaut wheels. The reasons far relacating a home can be
multiple: economic, aesthetic, sentimental. Only two I relacated homes (known af)
have been roved intO' Sharewood within the past. ten yeats. Yet with the econamics
and housing situatian as it is, the issue must be faceqI realistically. Legally,
there is a question as to' what the circunstancesare ilh. which a relacatab1e hause
can be disallawed. Individuality should be allawed. I
Problems to be considered in relocating are tree reII1OI'll. widening or damage to
roads, fitting intO' a neigh1x>rhood, and the neigh1x>rs I f input. Should pe.mits be
required? Public hearing be required? Time limit wit~n which to' inhabit? QJality
and condition af the house to' be roved in. How can thf City be protected against
any damage?
The house Shoul.d be subject to' (1) the. current. zoning.lnnance an. d to' the Building
Code far new houses being built, l;}.nd(2)',rather thanU~ writinganardlnancet:hat
we should natethe things we believe would be gaod to' ~nclude in an ardinance.
Reese roved, Spellman secanded, that we study the poss~bility af having an ardinance
in aur City to' regulate a relacated home. Motion carr~ed with 4 ayes and 2 nays
(Spellman, Watten). I
I
The of"dinance should meet ALL requirements: Buil~ing fade (canstnlCtian, electrical,
plunbitig, heating, etc.) and ALL health, safety, and zring requirement::s.
Leslie emphasized the need far a public hearing by thel Planning Corrmission to' be
inc1\Jde,d in the ardinance. Staver strongly suggested ithat the ardinance should
inclooe that nobody else I s trees (ather than l the respebti ve praperty owner) should
have to' be cut down, removed, ar damaged - <>neither pjrivate ar public praperty.
One af the advantages af the Watertawn City Ord.: . inance l s tha. t it addresses. the
prab~ems af c: licensed house mover~ deposit f~r ~s~s to' the C", ,-","(' at
credit, the ~nsurance, and the dut~es af a building ~dspectar. ROl.L~~~~~!
. I M I :,.~.L,.. ~
C~" Z '
.-L...~... -, ".1 _ - --,....-., !
.-. T \. ....'7 ;
A:J. ... L ;:)~_ \'
,\ccev" a -+-
.. ,.;._-:'1...1.,..'(., .1...._"'-- '
D~(~~OJ'I!.~2rf .
.
.
.
a.
b.
No trees, public or private, be removed to allow passage.
The building must meet curr.ent building codes.
Public hearing must be required.
"Building" should be defined.
A time limit on when it will be occupied.
Pennit required.
Must meet the zoning ordinance requirements.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
fution carried 6-0.
STUDY DISCUSSION
- ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
First Draft, October 1980
(Study is to Include the GARAGE Issue)
The question of where does the Planner come up with the words to be defined was
asked. If a word is not used throughout the Ordinance, is it necessary to have it
in the definitions?
The Planning Corrmission decided to go through the Zoning Ordinance, First Draft,
October 1980, on a page-by-page bapis, initially.
Page 1-1. Chapter 200. Subd. 3. I Relation to Comprehensive Plan. Spellmanrooved,
Reese seconded, that the last sent~, ce, "The Council recognizes the Comprehensive
Plan as the Policy Guide responsible for regulation of land use and development in
accordance with the policies and WrPose herein set forth." be deleted. fution
failed. (1) aye-Spellman; (5) nay~.'
Page. 1-1. Chapter 200. Sulxl. 2. Intent and PiJrj:X>se.c Reese moved, Stover
seconded, to refer to the Plarmer the wording of "use" being changed to "zoning."
Would it change the character of that particular subdivision? fution carried 6-0.
(The second sentence reading, "This Ordinance shall divide the City into use
districts and establish regulations in regard to location, erection, constnlCtion,
alteration and use of stnlCtures and land." is the one in question. )
Page 1-2. Chapter 200. Subd. 5. Miniinum Requirements. b. The Planner should
explain the word "minimum" in the sentence that reads: "In their interpretation and
application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to the minimum require-
ments for the prorootion of the public health, safety, and welfare."
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREVKX:>D
Regular PLANNING COM1ISSION.Meeting
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1981 - . MINUlES
Page 1 of 1
STUDY DISCUSSION - Continued
- ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
First Draft, October 1980
(Study is to Include the GARAGE Issue)
Page 1-4. Chapter 200. Sulxl. 10. . Cbinj:>rehensive, ReVision. Would like to have
the Planner clarify.
Page. 1-4. Chapter 200. Sulxl. 1. Autotrooile WreCking or. Junk Yard. The word
"currently" is to be inserted between "not' and "licensed", so as to read, "Any
place where two (2) or mre vehicles not i:1 running condition and/or not currently
licensed, or parts thereof,..."
Page 1-4. Chapter 200. Subd. 1. . Balconv. The sentence is to read, "A landing
or porch projecting iran the wall of a bui ding, and which may serve as a rooans of
egress," rather than "which sel:ves."
There was discussion regarding definitions. The Planning Conmission felt the
Planner should go through the definitions L..O see if they are still current; for
example, alleys, solar access, Board actio n (who is considered to be the Board?),
basements, marinas, wetlands, mobile homes, etc.. One night alone could be spent
by the Planning Corrmission in discussing one definition.
COUNCIL REPORT:
Leonardo = Near M:>untain was reviewed; they have a time schedule built into their
Development Plan. The Chanhassen part is underway.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reese moved, Watten seconded, for ad jou t of the regular Planning Comnission
meeting of October 20, 1981 at 10:05 P.M. Motion carried ~.
Respectfully submitted,
cf{aJd;-
Dart Fahrenbruch
Recording Secretary
DF
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORE.WOOD
Regular PLANNING C<M-1ISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1981
ACTION SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1 of 1
MINUTES
CAll. 'ID ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called the regular Plarming Ccmnission Meeting to order at 7:45 P.M.
on 'fuesday, November 3, 1981.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Richard Spellman, Kr?-sti Stover, Frank Reese (arr 8:17 IJIl), Broce Benson,
Janet Leslie; Staff!: Council Liaison Al Leonardo, Planner Brad Nielsen
Absent: Vern Watten (Bus:i.nesls)
I
I
APPROVAL OF REGUlAR PLANNING dM1rSSION MEETING MINUlES DATED OCTOBER 20 1981:
Leslie moved, Benson secoooed,1 or approv"tl of .the regu ar Planning Conmission minutes
dated October 20, 1981 as writ~en. Motion carried 4-0.
I
INFORMAL DISC SION: . i
- MATIHEW J. LLIPPI (21155! Mirmetonka Boulevard)
Canbination, Variance, am shbcinvision
! r
Mr. Phillippi explained hew~slto subdivide Lot 8 am sell a portion of it to
Mr. Chet Blac wiak of 4860 Fe!rn~roft Drive. Phillippi feels that by his selling a
portion of hi land, at least !Bl.$ickowiak may be able to benefit in sane way. A variance
\\QUld be re red. Currently th$ lots are zoned R-2 a are 19 000 and 13,000 square
feet and woul be adjusted, to ~8~000 am 14,000 square eet.
, I
! l
The splitting of the propetty ~ld create two new lega
position \\QUI improve; however, i Phillippi's position
procedure of y and underitlhat fircumstances a public
explained to . Phillippi. 'Tpe I PlarmingCcmnission s
for mre spec fic input.
descri tions. Blackowiak's
Id not benefit at all. '!he
earing Id be required was
ested e talk to the Planner
INFORMAL DIS SSION: .! i
27095 Edge\\Uoj:i ~ve)
I i
Mr. & Mrs. Lo . en stated theyl w~re looking! for guidanc as to ow to plan their 11. 6
acres of pro rty. There are ~c~lly sevep, not eight lots, i Ived in the sketch.
The 11.6 acre includes the swfml? and the high ground.
Q.1estions of ockage (access tp ~he lake through a sepa ate pie e of property was dis-
couraged) and stonn water/sewage/drainage were discusse. C nts were that the lots
are too small the property tuPujiroun:l lies on an isl in the wetlands; street to be
shortenM app oci.matel y 3OO-4ob feet; and Flood Plain inance should be checked.
-r ! I
recorrmend to ser ~he Planner: the next m
COUNCIL REPOR S: ! I
=Leonardo re rted that the drki~ge problem at Gene Pa ch' s, 2 930 Smithtown Road,
was tabled fo discussion unti~ rjir. Patch's, attorney c Id be p esent.
I i
=Leonardo re rted that EI1$ine~r I Norton says all measur nts c nfinn that the current
asbuilt drawi s are correct atrl i that the drop in the l'ne is i sufficient to meet
standard re rements. FO\llr pjroJ)>erties are involved on Shady lIs Road; namely,
19265-John son; 19285-1)ona1<1 feisert; 19335-Robson S yder; 1 355-Steve/Rosemary Lockwood.
.
.
.
!
I
CIlY OF SHORE.WOOD i
Regular PLANNING C~SSION Me~ting
TIJESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 11981 I
ACTION SESSION I !
I
Page 2 of 3
- -
I i
, I
I
~ C<M1ISSION REPORT: 11
1J;1e Park Ccmni.ssion reeting 0 Monday, November 2, 1981 had been cancelled.
~wm~"
- S'IDRM WATER'SEWAGEi STUDY !
~ere was discussionl regardin~ drainage prdblems am reference was made to the Can-
p ehensive Stonn Water Study dfated Jaruary1975 by Orr-Schelen- yeron & Associates, Inc.
P ssibly this Study should be used for reference regarding new rojects so that the
tural drainage is not disruAted. Perhaps an Engineer's Repo is needed with every
'lding Pennit. !
I
I
1
I
- etter rom T. G. Noble, Outljot 2nd Addition, Oak Ridge Estate , PID 32-117-23-23-0015
I
~. Gorecki from the audience ~mered why he had not been plac d on tonight's agenda.
Hrwc;s it;fonned that until he I~ormally request~ to be ,put Ion th . a~enda, s,:~ts an
t..i.Pl.~.cat~on,and pays ,the reqm. red fe. e,..there ~s nothing the.Pl nru.ng Ccmm..ss~on cancio
i regards tOI hisconcems. 'lj'he Planning Corrmission acknowledg d a letter fran T. G.
ble dated OCtober 20, 1981. I
I
- ni~I~=e(~t~=~~ion Ordinance
irst Draft, Octo~r 1980 I
e Planner respoml=. d to the ~lanning Cannission' s questio,ns of ''Where does the Planner
c up with the words that aJie defined?" am "If a word its not used throughout the
. 'nance, is it nepessary to lhave it in the definit+ions?'l
I ,: ' :
"elsen expressed Js concern Ithat the Plaming CcmjdSSior! may getting a little too
detailed in its s~y of the ~ng and Subdivision IOrdina:nce. As far as the defini-
tlions, they are pretty carmon Ito most and any kind qf ordinance. The definitions them-
s~lves often are t$en from stjatutes, other zoning qrdinartces, nd the zoning ordinance
itself. . It is ques~ionable i~ not foolish to start Ifrom ~crat because others have
~readY had experience in the lpast. The Ordinance t)as be~n tal< fran many different
o inances. am piec~d toge thelt with the ideas as to I,.a c~IDB 'rehen ive plan. Statutes,
s ate definitions are incorpo=ated as a code of rule. F01:l exam le '~'lding codes.
nyof these are cpnmonly ed; other definitions lhave ~en de u or defined
s rictly for the Zoping Ordi e. I.
"th ..,res that are! not defi~, then usages are to ,be apriUed. IS. ~t necessary to
ve a word in the Ordinance ~en it is not used in the Ortdina e? jrhe answer is no;
wever, such wordsl provide a statement in case they woul~ have to arend. In that
c se, the definitiaPs are mad up by the State. AnY. time I. the ina. f}ce is amended, it
i very time consurnJ.ng. Ther is "weight" or importance given 0 definitions. Every
rd in the Ordinanfe cannot defined however. i I !
e Planner will ch~ck the e Minnetonka Con ervaqion ndpartm nt dM:D) definitions
r garding water rel~ted tenns~such as dockage, Pier~. whar~,etc. as F~~y relate to the
~e Minnet<:nka arer.' If I.M::1 changes their finitions, lthen e co}tld simply change
oUrs accordingly. 1
I
I
1
1
!
I
.
.
.
C IlY OF SOOIID<<JOl) I I
~r PLANNING OOiMISSION Merting
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3J 1981 I
ACTION SESSION I I
I I
S'TIJDY DISCUSSION (Ctntinued): I
I I
Rage I-6. SuM. 4. Dock. This is a typo error, sd 'ust Fhange '~k" to ''Deck''.
Page I -9. SuM. 7. Garage-Private. Insert "primari y" ~tween "intended" and "for".
After lengthy discussion, it was decided this item sh d ~ FLAGGED I until we get to
it in the Ordinance. I
I
I
i
Page I-10. SuM. 8. Home Occupation. This is to be FLAGpED until 0/8 get to it in
the Ordinance. ' I
i
Page I-ll, SuM. 12. Lot-Corner. There was sane co sipn as to ~y the "point of
deflection in alignnent of a single street" was incl, ed. I The Pl~r stated that it
is signific~t because at a certain angle a deflectiio in ~he street creates a corner
lot, : !
Page I-II. ~ubd. 12. Lot Line. The Planning CoomiJs ion wanted to know when a front
lot line is not the same as the right of way line. . e Pl~nner explained that until
a township rcpad is dedicated, which is sometimes neve , t~ actual bou:rrlary line of the
property abutting that road may go to the center oft t road and typically there would
be an easeme1l1t over that road. The boundary line woo d gol to the center of the road
in the case <!>f township roads. In that case, the fro t prpperty line would be con-
sidered the outside edge of the road for purposes o~ setbaCks, etc.
Page I-13. $ubd. 15. Ordinary High Water Mark, Dis ussipn occurred on how vegetation
fluctuates. ! Planner will check on the mean high wate ma* and on the mean low water
mark .
Page 1. of 1.
DF
AIllOURNMENI: !
Leslie movedb Spellman seconded, for adjournment of it e re~lar Planning Cannission
Meeting of Tfesday, November 3, 1981, at 9:55 P.M. ' tioncarried 5-0.
Respectfully I submitted,
cP~1
Dart Fahrenbruch
Recording Sefretary
i
i
.
.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING C(M1l
TUESDAY, ,NOVEMBER 17,
STUDY SESSION - MI
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1. of 1.
SION Meeting
981
S
MINUTE.iS
<!:ALL ,TO ORDER:
Chairman Stover called the regular Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, November
16, 1981, to order at :47 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present!: Janet Leslie Richard Spellman (arr 7:55), Kristi Stover, Frank. Reese,
Vem Watten, Bruce Benson (arr 7:56).
Council Liai on Al Leonardo also present.
APPROV.. OF REGUlAR ING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1981:
Reese rrjoved, Leslie se onded, that the Regular Planning Carmission minutes dated
Novembe~ 3, 1981 be ap roved as subnitted. Motion carried 4--0.
LEITER4 ACNCMLEDGED:
Chainnan Stover acknow edged two letters from the Planner. The first one is dated
Novembelr 5, 1981 to Mr Matthew Phillippi, 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard in regards to
his proposed lot split and variance request. The second letter is dated November 3,
1981 a~ressed to Doug Uhrhammer in regards to Planning Assistance Grants.
STUDY UISCUSSION (CONI NUED):
-ZDNINq ORDINANCE and UBDIVISION ORDINANCE
First Praft, October 980
(Study is to Include he GARAGE Issue)
Page 1-11. SuM. 12. Lot Line. The word "water" should be included; thus, the
sentence should read: "A property boundary... extends into the abutting street, . ..
aIley, water, etc., th line shall be deemed to be the ~treet or alley right-of-way."
Page 1-12. SuM. 13. Marina. FLAG.
Page 1-12. SuM. 13. Mobile Home - Independent. I~G.
Page 1-12.. SuM. 14. Nursing Home (Rest Home). L~-:he word "skilled", $0 as the
sentence wi~l read: " bUilding having accorrmcx:l.ations where skilled care is provided
for two (2) or more i alids, infinned, aged..." However, the questions of why
"two (2)" and also wha is the definition of "skilled"?
Page 1-1.3. subd. 15. Ordinary HighMater Mark. Brad already is checking out.
Page 1-13. Subd. 13. Out-Patient Care. Refer to Brad. Change in the first and
last sentences the wor ''hospital'' to "medical facility." Ask Planner to explain
the difference between hospital and medical facility in regards to out-patient care.
Page 1-14. SuM. 16. Pllblic Waters. Planner to explain what the i"Settion 51;21 of
this Ordinance" is. F ther PubHc Waters - General Development; Pllblic Waters -
Receational Development; and PllbHc Waters - Natural Enyirornnent are all to be
referred to Planner.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981
STUDY SESSION - MITNOTES
-----
Page ~ of 1. -----
.
STUDY DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
- ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Page 1-14. Subd. 18. Recreation Field or Building. -rtus heading should be corrected
so as to read: Recreation Area or Building. I
Page I-IS. Subd. 18. Residential Facility. Refer to ~lanner. . Explain "residential
facility" as opposed to "group care and day care".
Page I-IS. Subd. 18. Restaurant. Delete "in or on no isposable dishes and", so
that the sentence will read: An establishment which se es food to be consumed pri-
marily while seated at tables or booths within the builfling.
Page I-IS. Subd. 19. Setback. ;ElAQ. Reference to "ordinary high water mark".
~--- I
Page I-IS. Subd. 19. ggg. ~Q. The second paragrabh is to be flagged until we
get to the sign part of the OriIInance. r
Page I-16. Subd. 19. Sign Surface Area. Planner is tL define "Enforcement
Officer" . r
Page 1-16. Subd. 19. Slope. Add "ratio" so as to rea~. "The degree of deviation
of a surface from the horizontal usually expressed in rcent, deg. ree, or ratio."
Page 1-16. Subd. 19. Solar Access. Add Solar Access tween Slope and Story, and
define Solar Access. I
Page 1-16. Subd. 19. Story. The words "upper surface~' are questioned; the Planner
is to more fully explain. Is it necessary to have the }vord "upper"?
I
Page 1-17. Subd. 19. Street. FlAQ until we get to the Ordinance.
Page 1-17. Subd. 19. Structure. A typing error; chanke Anthing to Anything.
Page 1-17. Subd. 21. Usable Open Space. Change the Jrd "covered" to "surfaced".
~ I
Page 1-18. Subd. 23. Wetlands. FlAG. I
Page 1-19. Subd. 25. Add the headi; Zero Lot Line, afd also have Planner define
what the Zero Lot Line is. I
l~ SECTION 200.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS. I
Page 1-20. Subd. 1. Nonconformim Buildims, Structur~s and Uses. e. ''When my
lawful nonconforming... changed to any nonconforming use~" should be further explained
'\ by Planner. I
Page 1-20-21. Subd. 1. g. Planner is to define "Builfng Official".
I~ Page 1-21. Sulxi. 1. k. Refer to Planner. I
J~Page 1-17. Subd. 22. Variance. Reese moved, Spellman I seconded, that the word
"Board" be changed to "City Council". Motion carried 6+0.
.
.
.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981
STUDY SESSION - MINUTES
----
Bage 2. of 2. ---- I
I
COUNCIL REPORT: (Leonardo) i
==Council \\Uuld like the Planning Comnission' s point ofl view in analyzing ways in
which our Planner could be better utilized. What arel the functions best performed
by the Planner for the City? What. expertise is needer the most? Can this be
covered in the minutes within the next few meetings?
I
==Also, the possibility of Training Programs for the Pl~nning and Park Ccmnissions
for more effective utilization in time and effort fori prograrmning and guidelines
to follow were discussed. If affordable, perhaps go ~o seminars through Metro
Cot.rr1cil, Leagues, or State. See film strips, etc. ~
==The Planning Comnission applicants will be interviewe at the next Council meeting
on November 23rd.
I
-T. G. Noble, Oakridge Estates, 2nd Addition. Perhaps I there may be a potential
contractural agreement iriwhich arrangements could be made to provide water. Water
over from Boulder Bridge Fann may be marginally feasi Ie.
--,Leonardo suggested there may be a faster way of getti through the Zoning
Ordinance, First Draft.
=Every member of the Planning Ccmnission should have al copy of the "Blue Book".
ADJOURNMENT: I
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, for adjournment of the I Tuesday, November 16, 1981
Regular Planning Comnission Meeting at 10:25 P.M. Motibn carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
;D~
Dart Fahrenbruch
df
.
.
4 ):.*
V~lA
I
f
lUNCIL CHAMBERS i
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
~:30 P.M.
1age 1:. of 1
MINUTES I
CALL TO ORDI'R:
ctWirperson Stover called the regular Planning Cormnission meeting to order on
Tufsday, December 1, 1981, at 7 :46 P.M. I I
I I i
~.'" ~e~~~L: Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman, Kristi Stove, Frank Reese, ve~"".,i Watten;
I Planner Brad Nielsen, Cormcil Liaison Al Leo rdo. ·
I. . :
I .. ,
Ab!';ent: Bruce Benson (work) I
ION', AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1981:
Le~lie moved, Stover seconded, that the Planning Cormnis ion minutes dated I November
3, i 1981, be corrected on Pagel 1 of 3 urrler COUNCIL REPO TS, second item, in the
first sentence; namely, "insufficient" is to be changed to "sufficient." Motion
catrled 5-0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting
TI.ESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
APPROVAL OF PlANNING C(Mv1ISSION MINUTES DATED December 1981: I
Swllman moved, Stover secorrled, to approve the Planni Comnission minut~s dated
Tu~sday, November 17, 1981; further, that the type be c<i>~ctedso as to teflect
November 17, 1981, rather than November 16, 1981. Motiin carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
-Rbberf W. McDougall, Vice Pris:tdent
~NNE'IDNKA STATE BANK
Application for Conditional Use Pennit
Ch.f3.irperson Stover read aloud the public notice as it a peared in The Lake Minne-
tohka Srm on Wednesday, November 18, 1981.
I
Mrl. Robert W. McDougall, Vice President, Minnetonka Sta e Bank, presented I his pro-
po~al for their,Conditional Use Pennit application. He explained the pla~ that was
sul::mitted. The proposed building site is located at 23 80 Highway 7 and Iilighway 41,
Shbrewood (Hoops Automotive Site). __ I
Th~ public hearing wasopen~d to the audience at 7:55 P~M. '
~. Robert Reutimann wanted U) to ~ow-how much busineks was expected (tp which
Mrj. McDougall replied that at the proposed Shorewood fatility, 80 per cen~ roughly would
bel drive.....up and 20 per cent would be inside the new fad..lity; whereas at the main
ba(nk in Excelsi9r, it is about 50/50. Reutimann questired the, accuracy of the
ptppe, rty li,ne as shown on, the sketc, h. Further, Reutima questioned (2) a,. s to why
Mrl' M Driskill never received a notice, to which hewa informed that th~ fee owner
of, record was mailed a notice.
~e public hearing was closed to the audience at 8: 04 pm.
I
Upf>n discussion, McDougall stated that since the time 0 the application frtinnetonka
St~te Bank signed a Purchase Agreement which will give . tonka State B~ title
tol the property; . He also stated that ,theN::.. Wayz9.:ta located at l<Dl and 5
inlMinnetonka adequately services seven drive-up lines; this is at a heqv:l-ly used
infersection. He further stated that the plan was prep red according to the present
.
.
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting
TI.ESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 1. of 1
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
-Robert W. McDougall, Vice President
MINNE'IDNKA STATE BANK
Application for Conditional Use Permit
ordinance; he thought the ordinance stated that the requirement was one parking
space for each 200 feet of the building and he wasn't aware there was any distinc-
tion between the staff and customer parking.
Watten feels there should be a second egress in the buildingand,alsQ mentioned
one area that would be very difficult to use as a parking spot. Reese says there
are many parts of our present ordinance that is really old am outdated; e.g., the
zero-foot frontage setback, whereas the new proposed ordinance setback is 30 feet.
Spellman thinks there may be a visibility factor on behalf of the customers with
only one egress. (McDougall is willing to redesign their planter to increase visi-
bility. ) Leslie is concerned with the p1acemeflt--ef-.-the-i:lrive-i-RtellerwtOOawin
~elationtG--t;he---exi-t-on,-te,the"ser:'Aca,road. Also, she is concerned with the traffic
that will be increased because of the new medical center. Who has the right of way;
perhaps this can be addressed with stop signs.
Further, there was a question as to whether there was ane~ement across the property.
Planner Nielsen stated a survey would resolve thatquestion,\and the City Attorney
has reviewed the materiaL If there is a problem, the Attorn~l will note it to the
Cormci1. Planner Nielsen stated he had talked to the City Engineer who imicated he
would like to have an addi tional 10 feet for on-site snow plowing.
Upon further discussion, Watten moved, Leslie se~onded, that the Planning Cormnission
approves the concept or idea am recornmems to the Council approval ofj,htjhei:CQnditional
Use 'Per'l11ib;subjeot' to solvi;ng the:Eol1owing areas of concern:
1. total parking availability (number of parking spaces)
2. internal traffic problem
3. inadequate frontage setback (30 feet is suggested, rather than 10)
4. five-foot rear setback
5. verification of the lot size and description
6. inadequate snow storage, subject to the Engineer's review and approval
Motion carried 5-0.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
-JOHN WORRALL
IX! LABORA'IDRY - P. U. D. /RESEARCH ESTATE
Mr. John Worrall, a land use planner with Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc., represent-
ing applicants R & D Johnson (IX! Laboratory), 5355 Shady Hills Circle, gave an in-
formal presentation regarding a proposed Planned Unit Developnent for IX! Laboratory.
.
.
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PlANNING Corrmis sion Meeting
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981
ACTION SESSION
Page 1 of 1
ornER MATTERS:
-Letter fran JOHN A. MILLER
A letter fran John A.Miller dated November 20, 1981 to Attorney Larson was ack-
nowledged, in \\hich Mr. Miller has asked that action on his application of Lot 52,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 133 to the City of Shorewood be delayed. Further, that
he waives any time requirements specified either by Minnesota Statutes or Local
ordinances.
Planner Nielsen explained that the statutes have been revised on January of 1980.
If the City fails to act within a certain length of time, any application is auto-
matically approved. He believes the time lapse is 120 days. The question is
whether or not Shorewood falls under those statutes; he will check out accordingly.
A letter is to be sent to Mr. Miller that he will be placed on the December 14,
1981 Council agenda. (I sent a letter to Mr. Miller on December 4, 1981, as well
as left word by phone.-Dart)
COUNCIL REPORT:
Leonardo stated that essentially there will be a contractural agreement between the
Council, City Attorney, and Mr. Noble in \\hich the City will allow an addition to an
existing lot. Oak Ridge Estates, Second Addition, has comnitted to not to come in
again unless they agree to plat the \\hole thing the next time around.
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese moved, Leslie secorded, for the regular Planning Corrmission Meeting of
Tuesday, December 1, 1981, to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
?~
Dart Fahrenbruch
Secretary
DF
.
.
,
,
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Planning Commission Members
Kristi Stover
ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
First Draft, October 1980
DATE:
December 9, 1981
Page 1:. of ~
Per the Cotmcil's recomnendation and in the interest of getting through this
ZONING ORDINANCE et al as fast as possible, I have assigned each person to
various :sections as follows:
BRUCE BENSON
Subd. 2. General Building and Perfonnance Requirements.
"g" through "s". Page 1-24 thru 1-27
Every member. Home Occupation.
Wetland Development. P. I-57.
Subdivision of Two Family or Quadraminium Lots.
P. I-57 thru I-58.
Subd.
Subd.
Subd.
12.
15.
16.
Subd. 17. Plan Review.
P. I-58 thru I-59.
JANET LESLIE
Subd. 2. General Building and Perfonnance Requirements.
"a" thru "g". Page 1-21 thru 1-23
Subd. 10. Essential Services. P. 1-43 thru 1-44
Subd. 12 . ~very member. Home Occupation.
FRANK REESE:
Subd. 4. General Area and Building Size Regulations.
P. 1-28 thru 1-29.
Subd. 11. Signs.
"a" thru "c" P. 1-45 thru 1-49
Subd. 12. Every member. Home Occupation.
RICHARD SPELLMAN
SuM. 11 Signs.
"d" thru "f". P. I-50 thru I-52
Mobile Homes. P. 1-42.
Land Reclamation. P. 1-42
Subd.
SuM.
SuM.
SuM.
7.
8.
9.
12.
Mining.
P. 1-43.
Every member.
Home Occupation.
r.OUTINQ.
M Pl....!--
em pc..!L-
Pk_
A~ E_ ,I
Agenda L ~ ./f:#,
Dispos..J:J:;.:i:;i.1
--'-
-~
..
.
.
.
"
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Planning Commission Members
Kristi Stover, Chairperson
WNING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
First Draft, October 1980
DATE:
December 9, 1981
Page ~ of ~
KRISTI STOVER
Subd. 5. Off-Street Parking Requirements.
"a" thru ''h''. P. 1-29 thru 1-36.
SuM. 13. Flood Plain Development. P. I-56.
Subd. 14. Regulations Applicable to Lake Shoreline Property. P. I-57.
Subd. 12. Every member. Herne Occupation.
VERN WATIEN
Subd. 3.
Subd. 5.
Yard Requirements. P. 1-27 thru 1-28.
Off-Street Parking Requirements.
"i" thru :''h''. P. 1-37 thru 1-40.
Off-Street Loading. P. 1-40 thru 1-42.
Every member. Herne Occupation.
Subd. 6.
Subd. 12.
it
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CQM.1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, DECEMBER 15, 1981
Page 1. of 1
COUNCIL. CHAMBERS
5755 COumRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
S'lWY SESSION
MI.NUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Stover called the regular PLANNING CXM4ISSION Meeting of Tuesday,
December 15, 1981, to order in the Council Chambers at 7:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Kristi Stover, Frank :Reese;
Staff: Council Liaison A1 Leonardo
Absent: Vern Watt en (business); Richard Spellman (
)
APPROVAL OF "PLANNING COMMISSION" MINUIES DATED TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981:
Leslie moved, Stover seconded, that the Planning Commission minutes dated Tuesday,
December 1, 1981, be approved as corrected. Namely, on Page 1 of 3, in the third
to last paragraph, Mr. Ed Driskill should be changed to Mr. Everett Driskill. On
Page 1 of 3, in the last paragraph, ''Wayzata branch" should be changed to ''Wayzata
Bank" . On Page 2 of 3, in the second paragraph... The sentence reading, ''Leslie is
concerned with the placement of the drive-in teller window in relation to the exit
on to the service road." should be deleted. In its place, the sentence should read,
''Leslie is concerned with traffic; namely, that the people who are going to be bank-
ing on the inside would have to wait in the same exit line as the people banking on
the outside for the drive-up window. Therefore, she feels there should be a second
exit on the service road for outgoing traffic." Motion carried 4-0.
Upon further discussion, Reese moved, Stover seconded, for the recorrmemationthat
in response to the fact that the Planning Commission corrected some of the comments
on the Minnetonka Bank minutes, that the Planning Commission minutes should not be
used by the Council until they are approved by the Planning Commission. The minutes
should not be included in the packets to the Council until they have been approved
by the Planning Commission. Unless the Planning Commission hears to the contrary,
this will be the policy of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-0.
DISCUSSION - UTILIZATION OF 'IHE PLANNER:
-What functions can best be perfonned by the Planner for the City.
-What expertise is most needed.
-How can the Planner be best utilized.
The Planning Commission voiced the following corrments. While they are studying the
Zoning and SuMivision Ordinances, the expertise. of the Planner is needed; things are
simplified with the P1armer present. When the Planning Ccmnission is dealing with
deve1opments--more than simple lot divisions--it is desirable to have the Planner who
has the expertise to analyze am express positive and negative ramifications that
might arise as a result of the development.
After a continued lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission recorrmends to the
Council the following uses of the Planner:
Continued. . .
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHORThOOD
Regular PLANNING CXM4ISSION
Tuesday, DECEMBER 15, 1981
Page 1 of 1 M I
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
SIUDY SESSION
Use of lanner
Administrative Abilities
--Development Requests (for re than simple lot
division)
Conditional Use/Variance/ ezoning (Written)
How Financed
Pass-Through Billing
Planning Coomission
Budget
--Technical assistance at 0
attend one meeting)
--Long-range planning/ surve s/ inter-governmental
consultant/ordinances/spe ial studies/vicinity
plans
Grants am Planning
Commission Budget (as
Requested) ,
--Budgeting
Planning Commission
Budget (as Requested)
WNING ORDINANCE am SUBDI SION ORDINANCE
First Draft, October 1980
(Study is to include the
Since there were only four bers present, the decision was made to study/discuss
the Home Occupation section. The following suggestions were made and the Planning
Coomission as a whole will ake a vote at a later time.
PP. I-52 through I-56.
OCCUPATION. Section 200.03, Subd. 12.
P. I-54-:-55. d. (1) Gener 1 Provisions. (i).
- 10:00 p.m. should be c nged to 9:00 p.m.
P. I-55. (2) Requirement - Pennitted Home Occupations. (d).
- the word ''musical'' sho d be moved to the Special Home Occupation section.
P. I-55-56. (3) Requirem nts - Special Home Occupation. (c).
- Fim out what "stock-i trade" means.
P. I-55-56. (3) Requirem nts - Special Home Occupation. (e).
- The second sentence sh ld have inserted at the end of it "within one year
from the date of enac nt." Therefore, the sentence should read: They
shall, however, be re . red to obtain pennits for their continued operation
within one year from th date of enactment.
The following quB5tions a ose: Should there be some burden of proof on the
Ci ty that they have reason 0 inspect a home. Where does one draw the line? Do we
really want the Council to e the decisions? Is it the intent that we're not going
to allow people to carry on Home Occupations in their garages? Would we like to
eliminate any special penni s for occupations requiring an accessory building? Is a
basement an accessory? How about storage only? Should we put the burden on the
abuser, rather than putting the burden on the people being abused?
After the Planning Cornmissi n as a whole group have gone through the entire Ordinance,
we will give it to the Plan r all at once.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREt\OOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, DECEMBER 15, 1981
Page 1. of 1.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
~L~SION
MINUTES
OIHER MATTERS:
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
-Leslie moved, Benson seconded, that if Kristi Stover is willing to be Chairperson
again that she be appointed as Chairperson for 1982. Motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENI' :
Reese moved, Benson seconded, fblr( adjournment of the regular Planning Commission
Meeting of Tuesday, December 15, 1981 at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried 4-0.
Respectfully subnitted,
l)~~
Dart Fahrenbru.ch
DF
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
"ACTION" PlANNING CCl1MISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981 :;:: ~ !. ~ !:! I ~ ~
PAGE 2 of 3
.
arHER .MATTERS:
~UR SAVIOR Ll.1IHERAN CHIJRCH
23290 State Highway. 7
Mr. John Foell, Eldon Morrison/Architects, Inc., appeared before the Planning
Corrmission to get reassurance on an interpretation of the setbacks as proposed.
Planner Brad Nielsen mentioned that as far as he was concerned there was no
problem; the Planning Cormti.ssion went along with Brad's approval. Nielsen will
be checking the existing parking area. Mr. Foell will be back with afonna1
presentation after he has met with the Church Board.
WATER POLICY:
Stover reported that she had met with Leonardo and Norton following the last
Council meeting of March 23rd. Leonardo, according to Stover, had suggested
that we define alternative options and allow the Council to make decisions on
"policy." During the discussion, it was decided that a cost-comparative study
between drilling wells and rurming trunk water lines would necessitate an
overall City plan for water. It was felt the Council is not prepared to accept
the need/or basis for such a study. However, the Engineer would report on
''break-even'' figures between private wells versus a coomt.n:lity well.
.
Subsequently, the P1arming Corrnnission members, Council Liaison Leonardo,
and Council members Baird, Rascop, and Haugen from the floor gave various and
opposing viewpoints. Two concerns discussed were that of (1) a cost-comparative
study and (2) whether a water system was wanted or needed. Leonardo expressed
the need for the ColIDci1 to first look at the decision as to mether Shorewood
wants a water system, even before looking into the study. Watten, however,
voiced the consensus of the Planning Corrmission that as lay people neither the
P1arming Cormti.ssion nor the Council are equipped to give an accurate decision
right now and thus a professional study is necessary before proceeding to make
a decision.
Mayor Baird, from the floor, stated one item pressing to the Council is that
of 10 or more tmitsrequiring a central well, that it is economically unsound
in tenns of development. Perhaps go to a break-even point?
Reese motioned, Leslie seconded, that we table the discussion on the break-even
item until we have the infonnation from the City Engineer; further, that we
recorrmend to the Council that the Engineer. make an updated preliminary report
from the earlier water study (1977), not a detailed report, in light of the
wells that we have in place now and in light of potential water lines. Further,
we reconrnend that the Council determine if they want a more detailed study and
what the approximate cost would be. Motion carried unanimously.
The reason for requesting a preliminary study is to have some basis from which
to evaluate the water policy.
.
CITY. OF SHOREWOOD
"ACTION" PlANNING C<M1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981 :;:: ~ 1. ~ !:! I ~ ~
PAGE 3 of 3
.
Through further discussion, having a referendun was considered; however,
Haugen stated that Mirmesota statutes do not pennit a referendum but instead
must get a reading from the Attorney. Rascop stated that Shorewood already
has a water system and the question is "How can we best'use what webave?"
Watten asked, ''What is the plan for growth and how does it affect the City for
water?" Gagne requested guidelines from the Council as to what they want and
expect the Plarming Cormti.ssion to follow.
.
Baird requested of the Planning Cormti.ssion clear-cut motions and also that
the Council has not yet received the March 17, 1981 Plarming Corrmission minutes.
It was explained that they were in their packets since Friday and the motions
were clear-cut, especially on Page 4 of 4.
In refer[~ce to promises of the previous Council, it was mentioned that no
Council ~~n bind any other preceding/succeeding Council as to decision making.
!
Stover 1tioned, Reese seconded, that the Council let us know and give us
directio as to what input they would like from the Plarming Comnission per-
taining 0 the water policy. Explanation: IX> they want to make an overall
policy ahd have us react and work with that; or, would they rather have input
before t ey make a policy? Motion carried unanimously.
Baird a logized for the misunderstanding between the Planning Cormti.ssion and
the Co iI, that there was no intention of ignoring the Planning Corrmission' s
corrments and recorrmendations. There would be a joint Planning Corrmission-
Council eting with the Planning Cormti.ssion being brought back into the in-
vol vem t of the Comprehensive Plan.
Baird a so mentioned an article:in the Sun Newspaper and that he had responded
to it. I -
AIlJO~:
Gagne ~ioned, Leslie seconded, for adjournment at 10:45 P.M. Motion carried
unanin10jl y .
I
i):1Ftted'
Dar~-~attenbruch
I
I
I
I
I
.
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: PlANNING C<M1ISSION MEMBERS DATE:
4-1~81
FRCM: Kristi Stover
RE: JOINT Council-Planning Comnission Meeting
8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 21, 1981
Please bring the following with you for the joint
meeting:
1) Comprehensive Plan Report No. 4
2) Memo from Brad Nielsen dated 7 April 1981
Re: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan-Proposed Revision
by City Council
(If you can't find the copy that was
sent to you, please call Dart and ask
her to have one for you for the Joint
meeting)
3) The Council minutes dated March 7, 1981
Thank you.
KS : dcf
CITY OF SHOREVK)()D
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1981
PAGE 1 of 4
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
,
MINUTES
FOR
PLANNING CCM1I$SION AND ALSO JOINT PLANNIN;/COUNCIL
7:30P.M.
---
---
PLANNING C<M-1ISSION MEETING:
Chaiman Kristi. Stover called the "StUdy" Planning Corrmission Meeting to
order at 7:35 P.M.
ROlL CALL:
Members present: Vem Watten (Arrived 8:40), Bruce Benson (arrived 8:45)
Janet Leslie (arrived: 8:37), Dick Spellman, Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne,
Frank Reese, and Council Liaison Al Leonardo
Members absent: None
APPROVAL OF APRIL 7,. 1981 PLANNING CXJvMISSION MlNUIES: ~
Reese motioned, Gagne seconded, approval of the April 7, 1981 ~Comnission
minutes. Motion carried Unanimously.
.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
- - Jim Miller, 10. 78 ac~s, Lot 52, Auditors Subdivision No. 133.
Mr. Miller presented a sketch plan for property located on the east side of
Eureka Road, north of Nelsine Drive, to be divided into four lots.
Miller asked for a "sketch plan" review by the Plarming Corrmission of the sub-
division prior to a formal preliminary plat. Miller had encountered three main
problems; namely, (1) that the City sewer and. tax records differ from the
Shorewood Wetlands Map as, to the extent of buildable area, and. Barr Engineering
determined the Wetland boundaries are different than \\bat the City's Wetlands
Map shows; (2) the rearranging/balancing of Lots 3 and 4 so that there can be
proper drainage; and. (3) :that Shorewood's private road policy does not provide
requirements for setbacks! from the road and therefore a 50-foot road easement
should be provided.
The Planning Corrmission suggested that since they were confused on the proper
procedure for a reviewing a "sketch plan" proposal, that Miller should come
before the Planning CorrmiJssion again on May 5, 1981 with a preliminary plat.
However, it seems that the wetlands problem is the first consideration to be
solved. ·
DISCUSSION OF lEITER:
- - Kristi Stover/Regarding Informal Discussions JArring "Study" Session.
It was stated that Planner Nielsen's report was excellent but the "sketch plan" .
procedure was not understood. Further, the question of does the Planning
Corrmission want the sec<>r1d meeting of the month to include anything on the agenda
other than it being a study session.
Watten motioned, Leslie seconded, that the Planning Comnission's second meeting
of each month be strictly. for study. Motion carried unanimously.
Furthennore, the Planning Corrmission requested to know ~o pays for the reports
furnished by the Planner.
.
CITY OF SHOREIDOD
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1981
JOINT PlANNING (]X)MMISSION/COUNCIL MEETIN;
Page 2 of 4
- -
,
PlANNING CXM1IS$ION. MEETIN; (Continued)
A IEITER FROM SIilORE\roD MEDICAL CENTER:
Stover read alo~ a letter dated April 16, 1981 from Planner Nielsen addressed
to Raymond D. Jones, of Shorewood Medical Center, that his Conditional Use
Permit had expLred. Also, that if Jones wishes to pursue the project, he will
have to su1:xnit a new application.
8:00 P.M.
~ 9 ! ~ ~ PLANNING <XM1ISSION/COUNCIL MEETIN;
Members present;
All those present for the Planning Comnission, as well as
the following: Mayor Jolm Baird, Bob Rascop, Jan Haugen,
Tad Shaw
.
CCMPREHENSlVE LAND USE PlAN:
The Joint meeting between the Plarming Corrmission and. the Council opened by
Mayor Baird presenting a ''Point of View" list that contained six statements.
Mayor Baird related his philosophy that the zoning should remain basically as
it is now with variances used as necessary in accordance to individual requests.
One viewpoint ~ressed by Rascopon the use of variances is. (1) the desirability
of the limited use of variances because of legal problems involved in using
variances, and. (2) Shaw stated variances should be used in the case of hardship
only. Another point of view is that variances should be used as a system for
adjustments to the new zoning ordinance. Yet another viewpoint is that,
instead of variances being used, conditional use permits should be used. Also,
undersized lots in the Residential-l zoning should be covered by a grandfather
clause written into the new zoning ordinance. Also, the zoning ordinance is
not to be confused with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the latter of wch is
in the process of being revised and the purpose of the joint meeting this day.
Haugen infonned members of the joint meeting that she had been at the Metro-
politan Council this afternoon and. ~en talking to their staff she had asked
whether or not Shorewood ~uld have to go through the full amendment process
and ~ere the Ct>mprehensi ve Land Use Plan for Shorewood stood at this moment.
Metro told her that the Plan was on a hold pattern and the City of Shorewood
~uld have to go through the full amendment process if the changes are sub-
stantial and affect Metropolitan concerns. However, we \\UUld not have to go
through the process if it only affected local concerns.
Further, Mayor iBaird reported he had met with the mayors of Deephaven, Orono,
and. Wayzata, of: ~om none have made any essential changes in their zoning.
However, other members of the Council and Planning Conmission stated that
Deephaven and Wayzata are already built up and Orono is independent, whereas
Shorewood on the other hand has a lot of undeveloped land. If Metro Council
disagrees with our Plan, it is understood that Shore~od could lose out on
federal funding, particularly, the Comrn..mity Block Development Grant.
.
,
CI'IY OF SHOlIDK)OD
TUES~Y, APRIL 21, 1981
JOINT PlANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING
Page 1. of ~
CCMPREHENSIVE lAND USE PLAN: (Continued)
The Council discussed the policy of allowing the Planning Coomission a vote
on the Comprehepsive Land Use Plan. The decision was to keep the vote with
the five Counci!1members; however, for purposes of this joint meeting, the
Planning Conmislsion could vote.
Consequently, the memo from Brad Nielsen dated 7 April 1981 regarding the
Shorewood Comprehensive P1ail:"'Proposed Revision .:QY.. City Council was discussed:
On Page. 28, Item No.9. The following sentence is to read: Safe, healthy
and attractive residential environments wch offer a choice of housing
design types are to be allowed. Motion carried unanimously.
On Page 46., Item No.. 15. Rascop IOOtioned, Haugen seconded, that it read
as follows: All new developments are being addressed on an individual
basis to either hook up to a rmmicipal water sytem or to provide their
own water. Motion carried unaniIOOusly.
.
On Pages 80 and 81. Rascop motioned, Haugen seconded ,to allow Planner
Brad Nielsen to recalculate these figures (on Pages 80 and 81) at the
final preparation phase of the Plan just before subnission. Motion carried
unanimously.
On Page 105. Shaw IOOVed, Leslie seconded, that on Page 105 the Planner in
reviewing the calculations based on Pages 80 and 81 be instructed to insert
the fact that the Metro Council sewer charges at present are based on an
abnonnally high usage factor per household. Motion carried unaniIOOusly.
On Page 106. Change the ~rd "supply" to "need, so that the sentence reads:
Clearly, then, Shorewood has parks and recreational areas which now meets
its present need.
Proposed Land Use Map on Pa~e 77.
Rascop motioned, Spellman seconded, that the proposed land use designation
of Semi-Rural Density Residential be 0-1 units per acre; that the Low Density
Residential be 1-2 units per acre; that the Low to Medium Density Residential
be 2-3 units per acre; and that the Medium Density Residential be 3-6 units
per acre. Motion carries with Shaw and Haugen nay.
Further, Rascop motioned, Stover seconded, that the proposed Land Use Map
on Page 77 be redrawn to reflect (a) the existing uses to show developed
property to meet the four new categories, and (b) that the undeveloped land
be shown with respect to the various district plans. Motion carries with
Watten and Haugen nay.
.
ADIOORNMENTOF JOINT PlANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING: .
Watten IOOved, Leslie seconded, for adjournment at 10:27 P.M. and set the date
of Tuesday, April 28, 1981, 7:30 P.M. for a continued Joint Planning Conmission/
Council Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
NarE: Cornnent to members: Review individually any areas of concern on own to
bring up at the April 28th meeting.
CI'lY OF SHOREWOOD
TUES~Y, APRIL 21, 1981
JOINT PLANNIN; ctM1ISSION/COUNCIL MEETING
Page 4 of 4
- -
.
RECONVENING OF PLANNIN; CCM1ISSION MEEETIN;:
At the request of Spellman, the Planning Conmission Meeting reconvened at
10:27 P.M. Subsequently, a short discussion regarding private roads and
public roads followed.
Leslie motioned, Stover seconded, to adjourn at 10:33 P.M. Motion carried
manimously.
Respectfully subnitted,
f) cvrJ -;, r
Dart Fahrenbrubh
.
.
,
.
.
CIIT OF SHOREWOOD
!'JOINT" COUNCIL-PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
- CONTINUED FRCM TUES~Y, APRIL 21, 1981
TUES~Y, APRIL 28, 1981
Page !. of 1.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
CAlL TO. ORDER:
Mayor Baird called the Joint Cotmcil-Planning Cornnission Meeting which was
continued from Tuesday, April 21, 1981 to order at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members present: Cotmcil:
Mayor Jolm Baird, Jan Haugen, Tad Shaw, Al Leonardo,
Tad Ra.scop. Planner Brad Nielsen also present.
Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman,
Chairman Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne, Frank Reese;
absent: Vern Watten (business)
Planning Cornnission :
APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 1981PLANNINGOOMMISSION-OOUNCIL JOINT MEETING AND THE
REGULAR PLANNING OOMMISSIONMEETING:
Stover motioned, Gagne seconded, approval of the minutes as written with the
exception that tmder the "Approval of April 7, 1981 Planning Corrmission Minutes",
it should read "Planning" and not "Park" Comnission. Motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUATION OF "" GrnPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN:
Page 116. District L Rascop motioned, Stover seconded, that thet\Ordii1.gof
District 1 remain as is. Motion carries. Spellman-nay; Baird - abstaining.
Haugen - abstaining.
Pag;e.H.6'C"117. District 2. The second paragraph is to be put back in; however,
the second sentence is to have "two to three" tmits per acre changed to "one to
two" tmits per acre. Further, the last sentence of the second paragraph is to
be deleted; namely, "The Boulder Bridge Fann is.. .with acre sized lots."
Pag;e.117. District 3. No change.
Page 118. District 4. Spellman motioned, Shaw seconded, that the second or
middle paragraph read as follows: It is reconmended that the western half of
the District remain semirural residential in use. East of Cathcart could be
considered for residential use of some\\hat higher density. (In other words,
"should" is to be changed to "could", and "preferably being... semirural
areas." is to be deleted.) Motion carries. Stover abstaining.
Page 119. Gagne:;:nptioned, Stover seconded, that in Paragraph 2, the second
sentence is to read as follows: It is reconmended that this area develop to an
overall density of two to three tmits per acre with the eastern section abutting
Cotmty Road 19 and surrounding the conmercial area. Furtherrriore ,t'allowed .to
develop to the highest dens:i.'ty allowed by the City." is to be deleted. In the
following sentence, "six to ten" tmits is to be changed to "three to six" tmits
per acre. Motion carried m.animously.
,
.
.
CI'IY OF SHQImVOOD
"JOINT" COUNCIL-PLANNING CXM-1ISSION MEETING
- - CONTINUED FROM TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1981
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1981
Page ~ of 3
Page. 120. District 7. Reese motioned, Rascop seconded, that the second
paragraph read. as follows:
Proximity to the shopping center and Cotmty Road 19 result in this
area being proposed for higher density residential use, especially
adjacent to the shopping center. While the area north of the railroad
tracks is proposed as low density residential, the remainder of the
District is suggested for medium density residentiaL This type of
development allows for a clustering of tmits oriented back from
COtmty Road 19 and the inherent impact of high traffic volumes. As
previously mentioned, the dredging operation is a nonconfonning use
operating tmder a special pennit which expires in 1990. The City
should require that the operation be heavily screened and buffered
from adjacent residential areas.
Motion carries.
Page 120. District 8. No change.
Page.12L District 9. Stover motioned, Leonardo seconded, that in the last
paragraph the last four sentences beginning with "If it were not for the
relationship..." and ending with "impacts from traffic." be deleted. Motion
carried unanimously.
Page 122. District 10. Rascop motioned, Leslie seconded, that in the second
paragraph "three to five" tmits per acre is to be changed to "two to six" tmits
per acre. Motion carried unanimously.
Haugen motioned, Leonardo seconded, that in the second paragraph, the second
sentence is to read: The area inmediately surrounding the shopping center
could be progressively increasing density to provide a buffer between the
existing ccmnercial zoning and the existing single family residential zoning.
Motion carried tmanimously.
Page 122-123. District lL Reese motioned, Spellman seconded, that only
the first sentence be retained in the second paragraph. 'lhe remainder of the
paragraph starting with ''Higher density residentiaL.." and ending with "...
via Chaska Road." is to be deleted. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 123. District 12. No change.
Page 124. District 13. 'lhe second paragraph is to be redone by Planner Nielsen,
after which a decision will be made on said paragraph. Also, in the third
paragraph, District 12 should be changed to District 13, as it seemed to be a
typographical error.
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
"JOINT" COUNCIL-PlANNING CXM1ISSION MEErIN;
- - CONTINUED FR.<l1 TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1981
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1981
Page ]. of ].
Page l25~ District 14. No change from previous revisions.
Leonardo asked the question regarding whether or not a factor of historical
zoning should be included specifically within the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Nielsen replied that he thought it should be built right into the zoning
ordinance without question. However, as far as creating a zoning district,
he was not aware of such an approach before, Cut at least a provision be
included that all sites will be considered with the possibility of historical
significance.
AIlJOURNMENI' :
Baird rrotioned, Shaw seconded, that the meeting adjourn at 10:27 P.M. Motion
carried tmanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
;Pad'
"-
Dart Fahrenbruch
.
.
,
.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREMDOD
REGULAR "PlANNING CXMvITSSION" MEETING
ACTION SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1981
Page 1. of ~
COUNCIL rnAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
-------
CAlL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Kristi Stover called the regular Plarming Comnission Meeting, Action
Session, to order at 7:39 P.M.
ROLL CAlL:
Present: Bmce Benson, Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne, Frank Reese, Vern Watten (arr 7:47),
Planner Dave Licht
Absent: Janet Leslie (North Stars Game), Richard Spellman (1:usiness)
Cotmcil Liaison Al Leonardo (family emergency).' Mayor John Baird was
present as Acting Cotmcil Liaison !
APPROVAL OF MINUIES' (Joint' COUNCIL-PIANNING ~SSION DAW APRIL 28,. 1981):
Gagne motioned, Benson seconded, approval of thtJoint Cotmcil-Plarming Conmission
Meeting dated April 28, 1981 as written. Moti~ carried 4-0.
FURTHER, Gagne motioned, Reese seconded, that a~ a Plarming Conrnission, the memoran-
dun from Brad Nielsen dated 30 April 1981 "Revi$ions to Platming District 13 -
Development Framet\Urk" be approved as a part of I the minutes of April 28, 1981, Joint
Cotmcil-Plarming Corrmission Meeting. Motion cahied with a 4-0 vote.
!
~TS: !
Mayor John Baird in Al Leonardo's absence reported on the action of the Cotmcil
regarding Jim Dutcher's Wild Duck 3rd Addition from the Cotmcil' s April 27th meeting;
namely, that in~tead. of rolled asphalt, the ordinance requiring cement curbing and
gutter be compl~ed ~th by:'1Mr. Dutcher. I
I
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
- John O. Chambers I
RE: Proposal to Build '00 4-Plexes with ~itional Use Pennit
(lot is located west of Legion Hall ah?~t 400' on Smithtown Bay Road)
(--"Allor part of Lot 25, Auditors S~vision 133.. .")
Upon discussion, the Planning Conmission agreed since the property is zoned
Comnercial 3 adjacent to a residential area, th t:)th~ property is a transition type
of area and therefore duplexes, apartments, or ondominiuns could be appropriate.
Perhaps a building(s) for 1:usiness could be con idered. The question of "Ib you
want conmercial or residential?" was addressed. It was the general feeling of the
Plarming Conmission that a transition of IIlIL11tip e housing or something similar
t\UUld be preferred over straight conmercial. F1 rther, the density of eight seemed
rather high according to the present ordinance ,nd the Comnission felt perhaps
one six-plex t\Uuld be better accepted. It was~ecorrrnended . that Mr. Chambers talk
to the City Office and City Planner for mor,e de ailed direction. Set-backs,
driveways, and sewer charges were also discusse .
0TIlER MATIERS: I
- COnsideration of' PUblic Hearings on Jtme 2. . 981:
The concern of so many public hearing schedul, d for Jtme 2 was discussed because
of the number being about four. However ~ it ~s stated. that the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan t\Uuld not be published in the p per in time to be inclu:ied in the
agenda.
_. Water "Break-Even' Numbers .. Report:
The "Break Even" Numbers Water Report dated A ril 30, 1981 from Engineer Jim
Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, was referred to from Which discussion
focused on the following points:
There was acknowledgement of the time facto that this question of "water
policy" has already taken and the need to rl solve it. Is there a real need
of a central well system? 1A short hisFory :)f the steps leading to the
.
,
.
.
CITY OF SHOREMDOD
REGUIAR "PlANNING CXMvITSSION" MEETING Page ~ of ~
ACTION SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1981 - MI N !:! :r ~ ~ I
current water policy was given; namely, res~dents with dry wells, a
mat~e~ of public safety, fire protection,. a d attempts t:> join witJ;
an adjacent city. Should the elected off~c als of the C~ty be making
a policy de, ci.sion before any details a1:1,. ecoE' S,ider ed? Wha tis the cost
to developer if he hooked up to existing sy tem? If number is 25, \\hat
happens at 24? How many potential areas do s this apply to? What
plarming effect does this have? Does this ve any impact on current
developers such as Amesbury and Boulder Bri~ge? Ib we need more City
wells? Is this an tmfair burden to developfrs?
Planner Licht suggested the first issue to belconsid~ is that of (1) Is
there a need for a central well, of going fro~P riva~e to City?, and (2). If
so, why is there a need? After detennining t se ~stions, then the numbers
can be dealt with; otherwise, there is no reI vancy.
Watten motioned, Gagne seconded, the recorrmen&tion ,t the Comcil establish
whether there is a need for other than incli vidtual we Is and then make that
directive known to the Plarming Comnission fot- furtttr consideration. Upon
further discussion, the motion passed with~a ..0 ~ However, Wa. tten empha-
sized the need for eJq:Jertise consideration ra her ~.rl mere opinion.
Reese motioned, Benson seconded, to table h~r discussion on the "Break Even"
Report mtil our regular study session meeting of th~s month on May 19. Motion
carried with a 5-0 vote. I I
- James Cabalka: I
Reese reported that James Cabllka would like tll1e PIa . ng Conmission have an
on-site inspection of his property some Satur~y mo ing. Planner Licht !
cautioned if that is done there has to be a ~sted p lic notice on the door
for if there are "two or more gathered togeth$r" it . s considered a public
meeting. Therefore, the Plarming Corrmission till co sider this matter at the
next meeting as to \\hen to meet with Cabalka c1md pos the necessary notices.
i
-Consideration of Draina e Problem in Shorewb b PI nni Cbnmission:
Mayor Baird addresse the Corrmission as to \\h ther 0 not they t\Uuld consider
tackling the "drainage" problem in Shore~od ~r if i should be left up to
the Comcil? The study t\Uuld involve such ar,as as ton Meadows, Glen Road,
etc. I
I
I
I
that the """tit adjo
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese motioned, Benson seconded,
carried with a 5-0 vote.
at 9: 35 P.M. Motion
Respectfully submitted,
t(a~
Dart Fahrenbruch.
CITY OF SIDREVKX>D
REGUlAR "PLANNING cnt1ISSION" MEETING
TUES~Y, MAY 19, 1981
Page 1 of 2
- -
COUNCIL CHAMB:rnB
15755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
,
MI NUT E S
CALL 10 ORDER:
Chairman Stover called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
In Attendance: Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman, Kristi Stover,
Bob Gagne, Frank Reese; and Council Liaison A1 Leona1:1do.
Absent: Vern Watten (Business-Gut-of....Town)
APPROVAL OF MAY 5.,. 1981.. PLANNING C<l-t1ISSION MINUTES:
- Discussion deciding date for On-Site ~nspection.
Through general consensus of opinion, the Planning Corrmission agreed to set
Saturday, June 6,1981,9:00 A.M. as the time to do an on-site inspection, if
agreeable to the Caba1ka' s. Proper notice is to be posted ahead of time.
WATER POLICY ISSUE:
Stover reported on the Water Policy Issue and that the Council had decided to
investigate the possibility of an independent pollster to poll the residents
of Shorewood to see whether or not they want water. Meanwhile, the Planning
Comnission will continue to work with the current "water policy" as is.
.
ZONIK;. ORDINANCE:
Reese motioned, Gagne seconded, to table discussion of the Zoning Ordinance
until it has been revised according to the Comprehensive Plan. Motion
carried. 6-0
TIlE RULES FOR TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION ITSELF:
Reese motioned, Gagne seconded, to table discussion of the "Rules for the
Planning Corrmission Itself" to the June 16, 1981 Park Corrmission Study session.
.
REPORTS:
...; Council Liaison Leonardo reported Jan Haugen now is in the process of inves-
tigating through the University of Minnesota and the League of Minnesota
Cities for the possibility of an independent pollster.
- Further, Leonardo reported the minutes of the Joint Council/Planning Comnission
meetings were approved by the Council with no corrections. Brad Nielsen is
now working on any revisions, after which he will send them back to us.
Leonardo understands the deadline is the end of June.
- Further, regarding Near Mountain Deve10pnent, Leonardo reported there was a
wording problem; however, it was detennined that it was supposed to be the
"final plan" and not "final plat". That is, the Council did grant extension
of one year to June 30, 1981 for Pf1aums' to file for the final plan.
- Further, Leonaroo reporte~ that because the City of Shorewood does not yet
have a water system, Dutcher was allowed to put in rolled asphalt instead of
concrete curb and gutter.
. ROUTING
M~ P1-L-
C~ PC-L
_ Pk-L
A-L- E-L..-
Agenda
Dispos.-
-
,
CITY OF SHORIDmD
REGUlAR "PlANNING COMMISSION" MEETING
TUES~Y, MAY 19, 1981 - ~!!'!!I:!:~. ~
Page I of I - - - - - - -
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
PARK CG1MISSION:
-No one was present from Park Conmission to report.
OTHER MATTERS:
Stover reported (from the May 11, 1981 Council Meeting) that Mayor Baird is
going to contact Engineer Norton about the report Norton had prepared some
time back regarding drainage problems in the City.
Stover asked whether or not the P1arming Corrmission would like to take the
drainage problem issue as a study item and seriously study it, or accept the
Mayor's reconmendation that we do not need to do anything on this until the
Council has a statement. from Norton.
The P1arming Corrrnission agreed to do nothing further on the drainage problem
until further directed by the Council.
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese motioned, Gagne seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 P.M. M:>tion
carried. 6--0.
.
Respectfully submitted,
Dart Fahrenbruch
Secretary
.
ROUTING
M I PI'
C ~ pc=r
_ Pk_I-
A-L- E.....J-
Agenda ~
DispoliJ -lLlW-
5'1-1" ) I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR. PLANNING CQM\1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY. CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1. of Z
.
~!'~QI~~
CALL..1'O ORDER.:
Chainnan Stover called the regular Planning Conmission meeting to order at
7:37 P.M. on Tuesday, JlU1e 2, 1981.
ROLL CALL:
Members present:
Frank Reese, Vern Watten (Arr 7:40), Bruce Benson,
Janet Leslie (Arr 8:26), Richard Spellman, Chainnan Kristi
Stover, Bob Gagne
None
Members absent:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING CQM\1ISSION MINUTES OF TUESDAY, . MAY 19, 1981:
Benson moved, Gagne seconded that the Plarming Corrmission minutes of Tuesday,
May 19, 1981 be approved with one correction; namely, that lU1der THE RULES FOR
THE PLANNING CG1MISSION ITSELF, the Park Comnission be changed to Planning
COllllission Study session. Motion carried. 5-0.
.
PUBLIC HEARING. SCHEDtJLE]),FOR.7:.30 ..P.M;:
- Joan C. Goering, P. J. Courture,and C. C. Courture
Simple Division and Square Footage Variance
Chainnan Stover opened the meeting to the public at 7: 38 P.M. by reading aloud
the legal notice as published in The Lake Minnetonka SlU1 on May 20, 1981. Sub-
sequently, Joan C. Goering explained their request. that Lot 12 and 13, Radisson
Inn Addition, be divided into two separate lots. The meeting was opened to the
audience at about 7: 40 P.M. There was no participation from the audience; how-
ever, Mrs. Goering said she had spoken to her next door neighbor who said they
were not concerned. The hearing was closed to the audience at 7:45 P.M.
Discussion followed wherein it was suggested the real issue is not a square
footage variance but road access. Benson says Garden Lane has never been serviced
by the City. It's being used as a driveway and not as a street. The following
comnents were a result of the discussion. (1) Garden Lane is a public right-of-
way that is being maintained privately; (2) Should a cul-de-sac be built?;
(3) the split is not appropriate for the zoning of these two lots as they do not
meet the current standards; (4) the access could possibly be by private road
rather than by public road; and (5) possibly a variance could be granted or to
give back money for one of the two sewer assessments.
Reese motioned, Watten seconded, to continue this public hearing to July 7, 1981.
Motion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 8:00P.M.:
- John O. Chambers
Conditional Use Pennit to Build One Six-Plex
.
Chainnan Stover opened the meeting at 8:03 P.M. by reading aloud the legal notice
as published in The Lake Minnetonka SlU1 on May 20, 1981 regarding John Chamber's
request for a Conditional Use Pennit to build one six-plex on property described
as P.I.D No. 33-117-23-13-0011, which property is currently included in the C-3
comnercial zone.
'~
~f;Y
ROUTING
M-L Pl~
c-#- pc-1-
~ Pk-L
A.-L E-L-
Agenda _
Dispos._
"" \
lo.-'~
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUIAR PLANNING CXM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 - ~!.!! Q I ~ ~
Public Hearing (John Chambers) . Continued:
Opened to audience participation at 8:10 P.M.:
W. Lush, Lake Fellowship of unitarians
24575 Glen Road
James Borchart, 5580 County Road 19
IXma1d W. Kinn, 24590 Smithtown Road (as well as letter from
Mr. Kinn dated June 2, 1981)
Page I of 7
Bocha:rt::-_ says it is much better than IOOre comnercia1 going in, but concerned
about water ending up in back yard.. Lush says he finds no fault with the six-
p1ex plan. Kinn appeared in person and via June 2 letter requesting a 210 foot
long, 8-foot high stockade fence to be built on Chamber's lot line. Further, a
7Jrfoot slice o~ land ownership is in question. .
Closed to audience at 8:36 P.M.
.
Discussion: Regarding the 8-foot stockade fence, a variance from the Council
would be required. Further, the 7Jrfoot slice of land and its ownership is not
an issue of concern under this particular legal request. Landscaping is neces-
sary. The Planning Comnission would like to see a building plan stil:mi.tted at
the continuation of this public hearing, but would like to see it before July 7th.
The State Building Code does have to be addressed.
Gagne IOOtioned, Watten seconded, to continue this pu1b1ic hearing to the July 7,
1981 meeting, and that Mr . Chambers should bring more detailed plans to include
the recomnended changes according to Planner Brad Nielsen's meIOOrandun dated
28 May 1981; namely, (1) the garage structure be relocated to the west side of
the lot; (2) the width of the driveway be reduced to 24 feet; (3) an erosion
control and drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer; and (4) a satis-
factory landscape be stil:mi.tted. Motion carried unaniIOOus1y.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEOOLED FOR. 8:30 P.M:
- Shorewood Properties
Renewal of (1) Rezoning fran R-1 Residential to R-G Residentia1-
Cal1nercia1; (2) Conditional Use Pennit; and (3) a Variance to the
Required Setbacks for an R-G Residential Comnerica1 District
Chainnan Stover opened themeeting to the public at 8:45 P.M. by reading aloud
the legal notice as it appeared in The Lake Minnetonka Sun on May 20, 1981 regard-
ing renewal of (1), (2), and (3) as 1istived above. . -
.
City Planner Brad Nielsen gave a background to Shorewood Properties regarding the
Medical/Professional Building and that the original request dates back to
approximately two years to be constructed on property located at the northwest
comer of Highway 7 fLake Linden Drive intersection. Subsequently, the developer
encountered financing problems and since the present City ordinance has no pro-
vision to extend a conditional use permit beyond one year's approval, the
developer is required to make application for renewal. A copy of the original
site plan is on file. The applicant also requests:a renewal of rezoning from
R-1 to R-G; however, the rezoning from R-1 to R-G was . approved and remains intact
CI'IY OF SHORE.WOOD
REGUlAR PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 ~ !. !! .!:! I ~ ~
Page 1. of Z
.
PUblic Hearing (Shorewood Prbperties). Continued: ..
without the necessity for renewal. Also a renewal of a setback vanance on the
north side of the property is requested because the Zoning Ordinance requires
25 feet from an "R" District boundary, while the site plan showed only 17 feet
on the north side; so even though the remainder of the applicant's property was
also being rezoned, the R-G District is still considered an ''R'' District.
Further, the previous request involved combining three lots (Lots 16, 17, 18,
Linden Park) and then resubdividing the resulting parcel into two lots. Upon
searching the City files, a survey of the resubdivision or evidence that the
subdivision had been recorded with Hennepin County was not found. This is being
checked into further.
Further, Nielsen reported on the issue regarding access to property west and
north of the proposed Medical Building site. What has become apparent is that
a road will ultimately be needed into that area, and that the north side of the
Medical Building site is the most likely location for such a road. This has
some bearing on the two issues at hand in that a total setback of 35 feet must
be provided for the Medical Building if the street is put through. If such a
road is considered inevitable, the City may wish to require that the Medical
Center utilize that road for its principal access; this could potentially
reduce traffic conflict along Linden Drive.
Ray Jones says he would be open to the possibility of road access from the north
side provided that it does not interfere :wtth the. building program as proposed.
.
Opened discussion to the audience at approximately 8: 55 P.M.
Gene Clapp, 24115 Yellowstone Trail
Paul Swanson, 24460 Yellowstone Trail
Kristina Gregg, 24020 Yellowstone Trail
Kathy Suddendorf ,5695 Star Lane
Stephen Gregg, 5695 Star Lane
Mrs. Marshall. 5320 Eureka Road
Mary Ann Capesius., 6120 Club Valley Road
Concerns brought up: (1) Where is the water coming in? Own well? City? (Jones:
the timing is such that it would probably require a well). (2) fuved into the
area in January, 1979 and feels that no IOOre cOIllrercia1 is needed since one
grocery store has already closed; seems to be a lot of sensitivity to anything
further corrmercia1--can only lead to expansion of further corrmerica1 deve1opnent.
(3) Any physicians who are already signed up?-why add a new medical facility
when we already have enough? Feels encroachment of conmercia1 that will escalate.
(4) Are the industrial revenue bonds still in effect? If not, how is it going
to be financed? - Let's do something with Linden Drive or let's forget it.
(Jones: This project was a victim of the interest market; the present plan is
conventional financing). (5) What happens if no medical doctors? (Jones:
Without signed leases, we don't have a building - but names cannot be divulged.)
(6) Why was a medical building chosen rather than an office building? (Gorecki:
The actual title of the building is Medica1fProfessiona1Bui1ding.). Jones re-
quested a recorrmendation fran the P1arming Comnission as any further delays would
cause a severe hardship.
.
Recessed at 9:17 P.M.
Reconvened at 9:26 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 - ~!. ~ !:! I E; ~
Page 4 of 7
- -
.
.
Public Heari (ShorewoodPro erties)COntiritied:
Discussion: In 0 r to ease the traf ic problem, the proposed road egress
would come just to the north; originally, the pr6posalwasto come out directly
on to Lake Linden Drive, but now potentially the road on Lake Linden ts going
to come out. If a road ultimately goes through, an additional 18 feet should
be accounted for to make a total of 35 feet. It was felt that an adequate land-
scaping plan should be submitted.
Watten motioned, Gagne seconded, that the City Planner and/or City Engineer look
at the traffic, access and egress to the property, and at all additional infor-
mation necessary and report back to the Planning Corrmission on all these things
at a continued meeting on July 7th. Upon roll call vote, the motion failed.
Reese-nay, Watte~ay~, Benson-nay, Leslie-nay, Spellman-nay, Stover-aye, Gagne-nay.
Upon further discussion, Spellman motioned, Reese seconded, that a recorrmendation
be made to the Council to deny the variance setback. M:>tion carried unanimously.
MATTER OF RECORD: It's a matter of record that it's already zoned R-C; therefore,
we \roIl' t deal with the issue of rezoning .
There was further discussion regarding the traffic problem from both the north
and off Highway 7. Creating extra traffic up to Yellowstone? Improving Linden
Drive? The resubdivision is in the process of being recorded. The problem of
setbacks can be resolved on a conditional use permit. We can request the
drainage and lamscaping in that area, but the traffic we cannot because it
is not self-contained in that property. Is there a basic need for the medical/
professional building? Should have preliminary drawings of the proposed structures.
Stover read aloud portions of Ordinance No. 99 which states that by law, more
information must be presented to us by the developer/petitioner.
Spellman motioned, Leslie seconded, for approval of the recorrmenclation of a
conditional use permit subject to the additional requirement that if the street
is developed irrmediately to the north of this prqperty the developer be required
to make an access to that street and close theiriaccess to Linden Drive.
Further, Reese motioned, Leslie seconded, to amerld the request to add that the
petitioner supply a landscaping plan and a drainctge plan drawn in accordance
to the ordinance for staff reviewal prior to issUing a building permit. Further,
Reese motioned, Leslie seconded, to amend that at the time of a building permit
the Planning Corrmission have the option to review the detailed plan for. both
floor plans and elevations. Upon roll call vote" the motion passed 6-l. Reese-aye,
Watten-nay, Benson-aye, Leslie-aye, Spellman.-;.aye,! Stover-aye, Gagne-aye.
MATTER OF RECORD: The plans have been sul:mi.tted land are on file in City Ha.ll-
except for the landscape and drainage plFlns, whidh are to be sub:nitted.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PLANNING COM>1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 - ~ 1. ~ Q I ~ ~
Page .2. of Z
.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEIXJLElJ FOR 9: on P.M. :
-- James W. MillerlShorewood Forest
Approval of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Lot 52, Auditor's
Subdivision 133.. . into Four Lots and an Outlot
Chairman Stover opened the meeting to the public at 10:25 P.M. by reading aloud.
the legal l1lotice as published in" The Lake" Mii1rletorutif Sun on M:iy 20, 1981 regarding
the request of James W. Miller/Shorewood Forest.
Mr. Miller presented his request for approval of a preliminary plat ,to su~:n-~e
property of approximately 10.75 acres, described as Lot 52, Auditor s. SulxliV1.s~on
133, into four single-family residential lots and an outlot. Also, Miller has
proposed a private road as access to three of the lots with (1) an easement of
50 feet, and (2) provide a 70-foot paved surface tumaround. Millerexplained
that he had encountered a problem, namely, that the City's sewer and tax records
differed from the ShorewoOd Wetlands M:ip. Subsequently, he hired Barr Engineering
t\ho detennined that the wet lams boundaries are different than what the City's
wetlands map shows.
.
Opened to the audience at
Jim Williams
Jim Smith
Judith Williams
Gary Dressel
Naomi Mae
Mrs. James Mar'shall
Duncan Storlie
10:48 P.M.
25450 Nelsine Drive
25580 Nelsine Drive
25450 Nelsi~Drive
25505 Nelsine Drive
5335 Eureka Road
5320 Eureka Road
5375 Eureka Road
Mr. Bruce M:ilkerson, of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman, & Doty, Ltd.,
Minneapolis - attorney for Mr. Jim Miller
Mr. Len Kremer, Barr Engineering, Edina gave a report on the engineering.
Corrrnents from the neighbors: the water level is down 2/3rds from normal-is
that considered in the Bar Engineering report? Will the 50-foot easement serve
the fire departmentt Mr. Jim Williams, spokesperson for the neighbors, read
aloud a three-page report opposing approval of the preliminary plat as proposed.
(The neighbors signed the report at the meeting after it was read aloud and the
signatures are on record.) Can't see one site that is buildable. Building on
it will destroy the wildlife area. The access is very dangerous. Eureka Road
cannot handle IIDre traffic, especially in the winter. There ought to be a
second opinion other than Barr Engineering alone. It isn't so simple to just
draw a line on the wetlands.
In response to the neighbors statements: If the private road is approved, the
lot owners would have to understand that it is a private road and would never
be maintained by the City. A 50-foot easement would be sufficient. The City
still would require it to be paved. The easement would serve the fire department.
.
CI1Y OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR. PLANNING cn1MISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 ~ M I NUT E S
, -----_.-
Page 6 of 7
- -
.
. Public Hearing SchedUled for 9:00 P.M. Continued:
-James W. Miller/Shorewood Forest
Attorney M:ilkerson reminded that we are dealing with an individual's consti-
tutional and private property rights; that if a City goes too far, then the
City is taking away from everyone's rights. He reminded that Miller is pro-
posing a development that is probably one half to one fifth of the density
allowed in that area.
Closed to audience at 11:12 P.M.
Stover read aloud City Engineer Norton's letter dated June 2, 1981 addressed
to the Planning Comnission members (On file)
Stover read aloud the letter to Mr. Jim Miller dated May 29, 1981 from Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District's engineer - Michael A. Panzer, Eugene A. Hickok and
Associates. (On file)
Stover notified she had received a telephone call from Glen and Lucille Whisler,
25635, Valleywood Lane, as being in opposition.
Discussion: The primary matter to be considered now is the differing opinions
of the City and Barr Engineering. Barr Engineering and the City Engineer Norton
should get together todiscuss the problem. The Planning Corrmission requests that
Barr Engineering and the City stake the wetlands limits.
.
Watten motioned, Stover seconded, to continue this public hearing over to the
next meeting of July 7, 1981 with the hopes to resolve the concerns that the
Engineer has brought forth in his letter dated June 2, 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEIlJLED FOR 9:30 P.M.:
-John McCartney
Zoning District Amendment
Chairman Stover pointed out that there was an error in the public legal notice
as it appeared in The Lake Mirmetonka Sun on May 20, 1981 regarding John
McCartney's request for a Rezoning District A-nendment on property located at
24035 Yellowstone Trail, t\herein it should have read "residential-;comnercial"
rather than just "residential. 11
As it was an error on the part of the City, Stover apologized and requested a
special public hearing be held on June 23, 1981, Tuesday, 7: 30 P.M. to be
continued from tonight.
Stover motioned, Gagne se ded, that if the corrected/revised legal notice
is published in the newspap r in time,. a new and special public hearing be held
on Tuesday, June 23, 1981, t 7:30 P.M. for this particular item because of the
erroneous legal printing in the newspaper as originally presented. MJtion
carried unanimously.
.
CITY OF SHORERX)D
REGULAR . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 ~ M' I NUT E S
------.-
Page Z of Z
.
OTHER MATTERS:
-The Plarming Comnission agreed to meet at the site of the James and Betty
Cabalka property located at 5885 Christmas Lake Road. for the purpose of making
an on-site inspection relative to the request for division of the property on
Saturday, June 6, 1981, at 9:00 A.M. Proper notice is to be posted at City
Hall and Cabalka' s notified accordingly.
-The Plarming Corrmission secretary was conrnended for the way in v.hich the
packets were put together for each member.
-There was discussion on limiting so many public hearings during one evening.
-Discussion on requesting that there be no other public hearing when the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is heard.
-Since there will the the special continued meeting regarding the John
McCartney public hearing on June 23, 1981, there will be no Study Session on
June 16, 1981.
AnJOURNMENr:
Leslie motioned, Benson seconded, that the meeting adjourn at 12:05 A.M. (midnight)
MJtion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
.
'T~ia-
Dart Fahrenbruch
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PUBLIC "ON-SITE INSPECTION"
SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1981
.
e
NOT ICE
OF
OliN - SIT E
INS P E C T ION
.
e
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON
SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1981, AT 9:00 A.M. ON THE SITE
OF THE JAMES AND BETTY CABALKA PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5885 CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
AN ON-SITE INSPECTION RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR
DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.
~- a Wiltsey
C1erk-Administrat
DATED: JUNE 1, 1981
.
e
.
.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
"SPECIAL" PLANNING ca.1MISSIONMEErING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page 1:. of 6
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CAll.. TO ORDER:
Chairperson Stover called the Special Planning Corrmission Meeting to order at
7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Those members present:
Members absent:
Bob Gagne, Frank Reese, Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie,
Richard Spellman (arrived 7:45 P.M.), Kristi Stover
VeTIl Watten (Vacation)
Council Liaison Al Leonardo, City Planner David Licht
Also present:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 2,1981:
Leslie moved, Gagne seconded, for approval of the minutes as written. Discussion
followed. Subsequently, Reese moved, Gagne seconded, for amendments to the
minutes as follows:
- Page 3 of 7: Ray Jones should be identified; therefore, the third paragraph
should read as follows:
Raymond D. Jones, Developer and Relocation Consultant of Realty Con-
sultants, 7300 France Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota, says he would be
open to the possibility of road access from the north side provided
that it does not interfere with the building program as proposed.
- Page 3 of 7: The fifth name under the audience participation list should be
corrected to read Gregory Suddendorf, 5695 Star Lane, instead of Stephen
Gregg.
- Page 4 of 7: In the third sentence of the first paragraph, "road" should be
changed to "driveway or entry access"; further, in the fifth sentence of the
the first paragraph, "relative to setback requirements" should be inserted
irrmediate1y after "feet." Therefore, the new paragraph should read as follows:
Discussion: In order to ease the traffic problem, the proposed road
egress would come just to the north; originally, the proposal was to
come out directly on to Lake Linden Drive, but now potentially the
driveway or entry access on Lake Linden is going to come out. If a
road ultimately goes through, an additional 18 feet, relative to set-
back requirements, should be accounted for to make a total of 35 feet.
It was felt that an adequate landscaping plan should be submitted.
- Page 4 of 7: In the second to last paragraph, "have the option to" shall be
replaced by "shall" so as to read as follows:
.. .Further, Reese motioned, Leslie seconded, to amend that at the time
of a building permit the Planning Comnission shall review the detailed
plan for both floor plans and elevations...
Motion carried 6-0.
ROUTING
M-L n.......L
O~ PC..2-
Pk...L
A-L E....L..
A~enda _
DiIilpOB. _
7-''';;1
4
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
"SPECIAL" PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page l of ~
.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - JOHN McCARTNEY
WNING DIS'IRIcr AMENn1ENT
.
Chairperson Stover opened the public hearing at 7: 50 P.M. . She briefly ex-
plained the legal notices as published in The' Lake Minnetonka Sun on June 10,
1981. Furthel;', she requested any person desiring to be heard to please sign
his/her name and address on the piece of paper that Council Liaison Leonardo
has for that purpose (said sheet is on file in City office).
Joe Gorecki, representative for JOM McCartney - owner of said property - ex-
plained that the request of JOM McCartney was to amend the above referred to
property from the present R-I zoning district into three zoning districts; namely,
(1) to change the present R-l, Single Family Residence District to
R-C, Residential-Corrmercial District;
(2) to change the present R-l, Single Family Residence District to
R-3, Two-Family Residential District;
(3) to change the present R-l, Single Family Residence District to
R-4, Multiple Family Re$idence District.
He further stated that all they're asking for is the zoning changes so they can
develop the property.
Planner Dave Licht stated that the developer says he has complied with all the
standards set forth according to the present ordinance. Under the conventional
zoning, they have the option to put in anything they want. With conventional
zoning, the property is bound to the zoning, but the owner is not bound to the
zoning. However, under a P.U.p. (Planned Unit Development), the zoning is bound
to both the property and the' owner as well as to any subsequent owner, and thus
the City has controls with miCh to work.
The public hearing was opened tor audience participation at 7: 55 P.M. The follow-
ing statements surrnarize the concerns of the neighbors. Gene Clapp is concerned
about the ordinance as to how it is affecting his house right now; he feels his
residence is now actually non-~onfonning to the present ordinance because of
putting in Riviera Lane a few years ago and is concemed the same thing will
happen if another street is p~ in next to him. However, Gorecki replied that
right now they (developers) don't have any street corning in next to Riviera.
Jim Hallman wants clarificatiot1l; he feels if an R-4 is approved, the developer
can do practically anything. Reese explained mat could corne in under an R-4
zoning.
.
Hazel Boote is opposed to the project; doesn't feel the developer made it very
clear that subsidized housing is no longer involved. Kathy Suddendorf feels the
real issue is density and not ~ubsidized housing. Harold JOMson is opposed to
a 3-story building, senior citizens or subsidized housing because he feels his
taxes will be raised. However, he is not against four-plexes or doubles.
Lorraine JOMson is against th~ proposal as she feels there is no guarantee of
anything if the zoning is changed-wants to keep it residential. Maurice JOMson
wants to keep it residential.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREVl>OD
"SPECIAL" PLANNING CC>>1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page 1 of ~
Rachel Leonardo read aloud the following (mich is also on file in City office) :
The area where the property in question is located isa rural residential
area - single family homes on large, lots - I see no reason to change the
present zoning to allow higher density and buildings of a rrore residential
conmercial nature.
I feel no obligation nor should the City to change zoning on a property to
make it easier or more lucrative to sell. You b..1y R-l, you can sell R-l.
I feel no obligation nor should the City to change zoning on a piece of
property so that a developer can b..1ild rrore tmi ts per acre thus increasing
his profit.
I feel no obligation nor should the City to spend rroney to revamp roads to
accommodate the increase of traffic that will certainly occur if higher
density is pennitted on the land in question.
To say this will not be necessary is totally tmrealistic.
Shore\\UOd is on the outer perimeter of the Metropolitan area. It has been
and still is rural residential. It should be promoted as such.
People that wish to live in apartments and close to professional buildings,
malls, and other conmercial ventures - need only look to Hopkins, St. Louis
Park, Bloomington, downtown Minneapolis, etc. etc.
We need not develop to look like a dozen other corrmunities. I'm sure
there are still developers who build single family homes - and individuals
who still b..1y single familyhames.
(R. Leonardo)
Kathy Suddendorf is opposed to the mole thing again, as there is no buffer. The
cul-de-sac Would go back to Lake Linden Drive. As far as zoning it R-G and letting
it go - no way! Because then we tIi'Ould have no say.
Chairperson Stover reminded that all we're doing now is considering the request
for a zoning change. The City and/or neighbors do have a little more control
tmder an R-G. Right now, mat the Planning Comni.ssion has to consider is the
change of zoning in such a way as to keep in mind as to mat could came in under
a new zoning.
Mary Lou Olson feels that, although this public hearing is only for a zone change,
it's opening a can of tIi'Onns. She doesn't feel we need this in our area. Paul
Swanson feels the public should have rrore specific input. Why can't the public
be more infonned? He sees no reason my the Planning Corrmission can't get their
copy also at the night of the public hearing and why the public . can't be more in-
fonned. He has been in the pits here for over a year and every time ;there 's been
a public hearing on the Shore~ Estates, the plan has been different every time.
He wanted to know mat they were bringing in this time? There is already too
much traffic; high density does not help that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
"SPECIAL" PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page ~ of&.
. Planner Licht responded by explaining that the City publishes the public
hearing notice in the newspaper and sends out written notices notices to each
property owner within a SOD-foot radius of subject property. There was suffi-
cienttime for anyone desiring more information to contact the office at City
Hall for more clarification as to the petition. It is a courtesy of the City
to send out legal notices to anyone beyond ~ 3SD-fbot radius.
Kristine Gregg resents the fact that this proposal is being shown to them. She
wants it to stay residential. She can see where an area close to Highway 7 can
be changed in zoning. However, R-I is her preference. Mary Ann Meyer is opposed
to all of it.
Hamilton May tvOndered why the City is getting into this; he feels ShoretvOOd
Shopping Center has literally destroyed the making of a living in Excelsior.
Gale Jomson feels if it's rezoned, the value will go down. It's really not fair
to rezone it.
.
Gorecki stated that they (developers) have come in with at least a dozen differ-
ent plans; each time a different plan was presented, it was as a result of input
from the neighbors. He strongly emphasized that Mr. McCartney has a right to
develop his property.
Steven Gregg replied that they (the neighbors) did. have an informal session with
Gorecki/ developer at the urging of the Planning Corrmission.
He felt however that there had been a little bit of a
breach of faith; he felt that they should have had a little bit more time con-
templating on what's being proposed. (a) What will be the egress on the R-4
section? (2) What will be the access to the property?
Licht replied that a number of things being voiced are procedural and again em-
phasized that from a staff perspective the way to make a developer conform is
through a P.U.D., and the way to prevent any problems is through a P.U.D.; there
are no controls if tmder conventional.
Mrs. Clapp says that Shoretli'Ood in general has always tried to go by steps in
zoning; however, here it seems to be randomly done; e.g. R-4 next to R-l.
Closed to audience participation at 8:45 P.M.
Discussion followed. Reese expressed concern over the sketch shown tonight by
the developer as not being the same as the one filed at the City office with the
application.
Gagne feels that this thing has been going on for ttli'O years and is getting tired
of it. It's R-l. The more he talks to people, the rrore he realizes they want
it to be left the way it is or developed within the bounds and guidelines of the
present zoning. He feels it's time to stop talking and take action. The developer
has the right to bring a plan in and the Planning Corrmission has the right to make
a decision on it.
.
Spellman rroved, Gagne seconded, the recontnendation to the Council that the present
zoning be maintained based on the present ordinance. rvbtion fails on roll call
vote. Spellman...;.aye; Gagne-aye; Stover-nay; Reese-nay; Leslie-nay; Benson-nay;
.
.
.
CITY OF SHQRE\-K)()D
"SPECIAL" PLANNING COM'1ISSION MEETING
TIJESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page .2. of &.
Discussion followed. Members of the Planning Conrnission discussed that there
is a big difference between saying it must be R-l versus saying it can't be R-4,
R-3, and R~. Licht again emphasized that it's a procedural thing. If rezoning
to R-4 is granted, the individual/developer can do whatever is allowed rmder the
zoning ordinance and its permitted use. If you're willing to accept that there
should be some other type of development, then our reconmendation constantly
and regularly is to go P.U.D. He further explained that rezoning can be initiated
by the owner, the Planning Conrnission, or the Cormcil.
Further topics of discussion :
- abrupt change of zoning (jumping from R-l to R-4 is too big of a jump)
- the current use of adjacent land, e.g. the proposed Medical Center on
R-G, the homes on the residential areas, the Shopping Center's proximity,
Highway 7
- traffic problems in the area
- the owner's right to develop his /her property
- the possible uses that high-density zoning could allow
Gagne moved, Reese seconded, to recomnend that the Council deny the request to
change the zoning to R-G zoning. rvbtion carries. 6-0.
Gagne moved, Spellman seconded, to reconmend that the Cormcil deny the request
to change the zoning to R-4 zoning. rvbtion carries. 6~.
Gagne rroved, Spellman seconded, to recorrmend that the Cormcil deny the request
to change the zoning to R-3 zoning. rvbtion carries. 6-0.
Licht again stated that if a change is reconmended that it be to a P.U.D. because
there is more control on behalf of the City and the neighbors. The reason the
original P.U.D. was never voted on is because the application was never completed
by the developer.
-
.
..
'.
CITY OF SHORE\-K)()D
"SPECIAL" PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981
Page & of &
TIME PERMITTING:
-TO STUDYTI1ECCMPREHENSlVELANDUSE 'PLANAMENIl1ENTS:
It was determined there was insufficie t time to study the CLlJP amendments.
However, discussion followed as to how the Chairperson planned to procedurally
guide the public hearing set for July 1st in regards to the CLUP amendments.
There is the option for the Chairpers to lead by sections, or to open it up
to general conment to the people to lain what the Plan is and the reason for
the policy changes, and to go by dist "cts.
An overView of the Plan would be the sis of the ,overall presentation; e.g. !'NeEe
are the changes being recorrmended..." Then go sec~ionally by districts with a
presentation by the City Planner prece "ng each district. If there is a question,
the chairperson should attempt to ans r the question; then if necessary, the
Plarmer will clarify.
The Planner stated it was the Planning Conrnission' s perogative as to whether or
not to take action that night or to po tpone any decision for at least two weeks
following a public hearing. Perhaps t Chairperson should announce before the
public hearing conmences that the PI "ng Conrnission has made the decision not
to take action for at least two weeks, as the pul:pOse of this public hearing is
to take public testimony only and not 0 take action. However, it has to be
borne in mind that on this particular "ssue there is a time problem in getting
the CLUP to the Metro Council.
As to order, the preference is to take questions from each district first, because
some questions will almost answer th elves when we get to the districts.
Also, paper and penCils are to be pass d out onto which questions can be noted.
Subsequently, if their questions have ot been answered by the time the districts
are completed, then they may ask the stions.
OiliER MATTERS:
Stover reconmended that the members of the Planning Ccmni.ssion choose an item and
take turns in going to the Council mee ings when it is on the agenda. Also, it
seems that the Park Conrnission would 1" ke to have a member of the Planning Com-
mission present at their meetings and/ r to advise them as to anything pertinent
to the Park Carmission. Especially ri t now, the Park Com:nission is looking for
input because of RreemanPark - ingres and egress on Eureka Road.
Further, it was suggested that the PI
order to get the public's attention.
members should be talking among themse
direct each and every question or co
hearings would go more smoothly.
"ng Conrnission should have a ''hanmer'' in
her, that none of the Planning Conrnission
es apart from any other member, but rather
t to the Chairperson so that' the public
ADJOURNMENT :
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, for adjo
Respectfully submitted,
7),::/, >;t f~
Dah Fahrenbruch, Secretary
t at 10:12 P.M. M::>tion carries. 6-0.
.
.
.
CI1Y OF SHOREt\OOD
Regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, July 7, 1981
Page 1. of ~
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Stover called the regular PIa ing Co~ssion Meeting to order at
7:35 P.M.
ROlL CALL:
Present: Stover, Gagne, Reese, Watten
Also: Council Liaison Al Le
Absent: Leslie (Family Emergency), S
Benson!
rdo
llman I(Business)
,
APPROVAL OF PLANNING C<Mv1ISSION MlNUIE DATED lJUNE', 23 1981:
Page 5 of 6. In the fourth paragraph rom the: bottom of the page, "on the...
gratmds that a more appropriate vehi Ie for :the use of the parcel be P.U.D."
is to be deleted. :
I
Page 5 of 6. In the third paragraph f om the pottom of the page, "cannot go
along with the R-l" is to be deleted and rep~aced with "I am not against R-l
but don't want to limit the choices 0 only ~-l."
,
,
Gagne moved, Reese seconded, to approVi the minutes of June 23, 1981 as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chairman Stover announced that Jim Mil er had ~equested a postponement of his
public hearing to August 4, 1981. F her tha~ his property, according to his
letter, will be staked and notice give for viewal before the next meeting.
,
I
Chainnan Stover announced that James C balka ~s requested postponement of his
public hearing to the Fall of 1981.
Chainnan Stover announced that Jolm
public hearing until sometime in Augus .
requested postponement of his
CONrlNUATIONOF PUBLIC, HEARING:
- JOAN C. GOERING,. P .J. COURTURE, AND . C. COtJRTURE
Simple Division ~ Square Footage V riance I
Upon discussion, there were concerns ressedl about the roadway referred to as
Garden Lane being 4i dead-end. If road access ~s through Lot 13, a terracing
problem would exist because it comes i from tl1e high ground and dips down.
Perhaps extendi the road that tenni tes and I connecting it down to Radisson
Inn Road. In ans 'r to the question 0 why were the lots joined together
originally, Mrs. ering thought it wa for t* benefits of homesteading. Stover
read aloud a note 9ated May 28,1981 b Elsa W~ltsey to the PlanningCom:ni.ssion
that stated it w: sl assessed for two f 1 sewer; units. If the split is not granted,
the City should c nsider refunding one sewer a~sessment. Also, there was recog-
ntion of the ext undersized lots f r anR-~ zone, but the surrounding area
contains the same size lots. It wasn ted that the current house is on Lot 12
(the smaller of t e two lots).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHQREMOO
Regular PLANNING <n1MISSlOO Meeting
Tuesday, July 7, 1981
Page ~ of ~
Planner Nielsen tated that they are currently! a "zoning" lot; i.~., fwo parcels
were joined for ax purposes. For zoning purppses, they are consl.derfd as on~
lot and conseque t1y it is the reason for Goe~ing, Courture, and Cou!ture comng
to the City for request to divide it into twp lots. The size of th~ parcels
require variance based upon the existing zonipg (R-1). It does not ~et the
requirements of he zoning district. The accejss is still a question. There
is a possibility that an easement cou1,d be ruq along the east side of Lot 13 to 12.
Can the City all w an easement over a platted private street? Factor that the
City has to cons'der are (1) the surrotmding 1pt sizes, (2) access, apd (3) the
fact that the Ci y has already charged the pr<t>erty owner for two se~r assessments.
: I
I
Benson is conce ed of the precedence setting !factor and does not wanf to see
any more splits 'nto smaller lots.' :
! i
I
Mrs. Goering sta ed she has talked to her neighbors who are not againrt the split.
I
:
difficulty is that it is R-1!.
I
that they ahprove the
Motion ca~ies 3-2.
I
!
I
Upon further dis ussion, the following corrment!s supported or gave go~ reason
for the motion; 1y, (1) Public (private rood) can extend three 10t:s in length
providing access to Lot 11; (2) The character ~f the area allow, s reversion to
the original siz d lots; and (3) Lot 13 has ac~ess from Radisson Inn Road.
se seconded, to reconmend to Ithe Cotmcil
request for a di . sion split and square footage variance.
Stover-aye, Gagn -nay, Reese-aye, Watten-aye; !Benson-nay.
I
This is to be pu on the Cotmci1 agenda for JuP-Y 13th.
,
INFORMAL', DISCUSS ON:
- ERIC CHRISTENS
Property Addre s: 23320 Park Street, Lots 1! and 12, Ball's Additi01j1 to Excelsior
Request: Sp1i Lots 1 and 12 to allow two s~parate buildable sites I
, :
I
Christense has lots - 12 and 1 ..;.. which ha~e previously been comb~ned. A
chicken co p t ed into a rental tmit and a l~rge farmhouse is on thee property.
He is will ng to tear down the "chicken coop" ii.f he could build on it ~ and he
would like to se 1 the large farmhouse on Lot tL2 as a homestead. I
I I
, I
Concerns d scuss d are that the existing housel on Lot 12 seems to be <Pn or over
the lot 1i e and there exists a severe slopeonl the north one half of te property.
On the wes one 1f of the block, the lots are 20,{)(X) square foot 10 s and there
are sma11e lots to the east (in J?cce1sior) wh~rein the l<;>t sizes areiappr<;>ximate1y
12,{)(X) s re fe t each. The varl.ance would t$ve to be g1.ven on the ot hne to
make the 'sti house comply. An adjacent 1pt is owned by the Cityt
. I
The P1anni Co 'ssion felt they should indivfdua11y visit the site.~f
Christense deci es to pursue his request, it ~11 have to be on a fo 1 basis
through a ub1ic earing. Applicant must fi1el fee and application be ore setting
a public h aring. !
.
.
.
INFORMAL DSCUSSION
- ROBERT R NELSON - 6140 Pleasant Avenue
A Lot Sp it Request to Split Off 10,000 Square Feet of Lot C on Pleasant Avenue
Mr. Tom Wi kenhauser, representative for Mr. Nelson, requested input on an
informal b sis as to the possibilities of selling 10,000 square feet off of Lot C
to his nei bor across the road who wants to purchase the 10,000 square feet for
recreati 1 purposes (volleyball court, etc.).
Plarmer Ni lsen informed that the City carmot create an unbuildabJ:e parcel and
that recre tional activities are allowed only as an accessory use to a principal
use - in t is case a house.
Therefore, Lot C carmot be split; the 10,000 square feet must stay with the
house on t C.
INFORMAL DSCUSSION
- MIKE PI 0
Proposed Lot Split of Lot 161 , Auditors Sulxlivision No. 120
The appli t claims there is a private road through Lot 160 on the north and
to the rea of his property. Further, the road easement to the back of the
property i currently being used by part of Lot 159.
There was oncern over planning for the surrounding areas. It was suggested to
Mr. Pierro that he consider Hillendale Road as an access. If it is likely that
more peopl would like to use the proposed easement as. a result of a lot split,
then there should be proper plarming for it now. This particular piece of road
could serv at least four lots. However, even then, the Planner does not
recorrmend he private road situation. The present ordinance states no more than
three home on any private road.
Within the next month, the Plarming Corrmission as a group wants to look at the
site as part of this informal review, and Mr. Pierro is to be contacted
accordingly. It seems to be an area problem rather thana lot split.
There was further discussion over the City standards for roads as being too
stiff. Plarmer Nielsen suggested the matter be discussed as part. of the Sulxli-
vision Ordinance Review and that the Engineer should address this.
FLOOD. PlAIN MANAGEMENT AIMINISTRATIVE WORKSHOP
- Chainnan . Stover referred to a letter received from the State of Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources regarding a "Flood Plain Management Administra-
tive Workshop" on July 10, 1981 at 9:00 affi- 4:00 pm in the Mirmesota Department
of Transportation Training Center, 1900 West County Road I, Arden Hills, MN.
Councilman Bob Rascop said he would attend it.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOR.EVK)()D
Regular PlANNING <D1MISSION Meeting
Tuesday, July 7, 1981
Page ~ of ~
R E P 0 R T S:
Council:
-Council Liaison Leonardo reported that the Medical Center decision has been
tabled until a traffic study is completed.
-Further, he stated that in going through the Ordinance, he 11.()ticed a list of
12 items to which the Planning Corrmission members should/could be referring
and in fact (he believes) is mandatory. (See C.U.P., Section 7, Sulxlivision 3 C).
However, the Planning Corrmission expressed an uncomfortableness at being re-
quired to ask for evidence of financial capabilities of any applicant.
Leonardo will address this issue at the next Council meeting on July 13th.
-Further, "collector streets" were discussed.
Park Corrmission:
-Bob Gagne of Planning Corrmission reported he had been at the July 6 Park
Corrmission meeting and that they are looking for ideas and suggestions from
the Planning Corrmission as to developing Freeman Park, particularly to the
anticipated traffic problem that could occur in the future.
AllJOURNMENT :
Reese moved, Watten seconded, to adjourn the regular Planning Corrmission meeting
at 9:30 P.M. MJtion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
E~
Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOR.EVK)()D
Regular PlANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 1981
Page 1 of 3
- -
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called the regular Planning Corrmission Meeting to order at
7:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Those in Attendance: Richard Spellman (arr 8:00 P.M.), Kristi Stover, &>b Gagne,
Frank Reese, Vern Watten (arr 8: 12 P.M.), Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie
Also: Council Liaison Al Leonardo, Plarmer Brad Nielsen
APPROVAL OF PlANNING C<Mv1ISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 7, 1981:
Reese moved, Gagne seconded, for approval of the PlarmingCorrmission minutes
dated July 7, 1981, as amended.
Page 3 of 4, under Infonnal Discussion - Mike Pierro, in the last sentence
of the second paragraph, "ordinance" should be changed to "policy."
Page ~ of ~, under R e p 0 r t s:, in the second paragraph within the first
sentence, No. 77, Subdivision'3; C 3, should be inserted so as to read
Ordinance No. 77 , Subdivision 3 C 3.
MJtion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS OFCCMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PlAN - SHOREtroD,
REPORT NO. 4 ~'POLICY PlAN/DEVELOPMENT F'RAME.W)RK
Chainnan Stover opened the meeting to the public at 7: 50 P.M. by reading aloud
the legal notice as published in The Lake Minnetonka Sun on July 8, 1981.
A sign-up sheet (on file) for the name, address, and signature of anyone desiring
to be heard was passed throughout the audience, as well as pencils and paper for
any questions not yet answered by the Planner upon giving an explanation of each
district.
Plarmer Brad Nielsen, Northwest Consultants, Inc., gave a surrmary of the Compre-
hensive Land Use Plan (C.L.U.P.) and explained that the purpose of tonight's
meeting is to go over the revisions of this document that has been available in
City Hall and of which was approved by both the Planning Comnission and the
Council.
In tenns of the document itself, Nielsen briefly went through (with the aid of
a slide projector) and explained the four basic concepts, the stages of develop-
mental framework and what the amendments in general cover; further, each of the
14 districts within Shore~ were explained individually. He also stated that
there were relatively few changes in the C.L.U.P. and that the meeting tonight
was for the purpose of gathering input from the Shorewood residents prior to
final approval of the Comprehensive Plan before suhnitting it to the Metro Council.
RECESSED 8 45 ROUTING I
: : P.M. I
M - PI I I
RECONVENED: 8: 50 P.M. - - I
C-!L PC-'1_ I
- Pk-L l
A-L- E.....L.- '
~~:~:. =: . ..1' ~~'i/
CITY OF SHOREVK)()D
Regular PlANNING C(1.f.1ISSION Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 1981 ~! li !! ! ~ ~
Page ~ of 1
. PUBLIC HEARING: C.L.U.P (Continued):
The public hearing was opened o.the. audience for participation at 8: 50 P.M.
The districts and areas of con rn discussed were District 12-christmasLake Road;
District 10-traffic problem on Country Club Road/Yellowstone Trail/Lake Linden
Drive; District 2-10t sizes/re oning east of Howard's Point Road; and Collector's
streets.
,
I
District No. '. 12: Jim Cabalk,q, 5885 Christmas Lake Road, would like to see
similar lot sizes further downlthan what is shown in the C.L.U.P. The north side
of the. lake shows 1-2 units pet. acre; he loJOUld like the east side of ffiristmas
Lake Road to also have 1-2 unirs per acre.
DistrittNo..IO: The main 1Lssue discussed here was the traffic problem from
County Road 19, onto Cotmtry C~ub Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive,
to State Highway No.7. i
The Planning Comnission assure~ the public that this particular issue had been
and still is under discussion: I how to stop the traffic, what to do with the
traffic we have, and how best fO resolve the problem.
I
The traffic study undertaken wks strictly in relation to the Medical/Professional
Building; the study has not ~o ved anything but has only given IlDre input. It is
more than just an area/distric problem, but a conmunity problem. Further, thre
would probably have to be a , lic hearing in order to properly address the problem.
I
Hazel Boote, 24.300 Yellowstone I Trail, feels that a traffic study would be a waste
of time and an upgrading of t~ road would only increase the traffic. Paul.
Swanson, 24460 Yellowstone Trafl, voiced the same opinion (copy of his report
that he read aloud is on file) ~ as well as stating that an upgrading would not
make it any safer for walkers .nd joggers, or for those coming out of driveways.
I
District No., 2: Discussionlo.erefocused on the possible rezoningfrotTI R-lto
R-2 of the area to the east Ofj HowardsPoint Road and wetlands.
Baird expressed his desire tha~ the lot sizes be retained asR-l (40,000 square
feet) and does not want to seelthe wetlands destroyed. Baird stated that the
Metro Council of the Twin Citi~s Area has required each City to put together a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan; hl:>wever, other than their being able to cut us off
from some funding/ grants, theyl. really have no other control over us. Chuck
Brown, 5875 Howards Point Roadl, and Jane Cole, 27460 Maple Ridge Lane, both agreed
with Mayor Baird that the lot fizes should be retained as R-l.
A discussion occurred regarding zoning whereas Planner Nielsen explained that the
zoning is a separate issue fr~ the C.L.U.P and will be addressed after the C.L.U.P.
is approved. Baird expressed ~erious misgivings and feels that the C.L.U.P. should
be completely consistent with the zoning. Cole seconds, as she is against further
density and feels it should remain R-I because it is consistent with the
natural surroundings. Dave Pa~ley, 27635 Island View road, agrees with Baird and
Cole. '
.
.
'{t~ryJ
~~,
~qltl
~
.
.
I
i
i
CITY OF SHOREVK)()D I
REGUIAR PlANNING ca-1MISSION ME$rING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1981 I
ACTION SESSION i
PAGE 1 of 2 M I NUT E S
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
CAlL. TO ORDER:
Chainnan Stover called the meeting to order at 7: 40 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members present:
Also present:
Chainnan Kristi Stover, Frank Reese, Robert Gagne, Janet Leslie
Councilman Liaison Al Leonardo
Colmcilwoman an Haugen
Bruce Benson, Vem Watten ~ ;t~.t.1..RAj/'iYl)r~
Members present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1980:
Reese motioned, Gagneseconded, for approval of the December 16, 1980 minutes,
subject to said minutes reflect ng that the Planning Comnission had recorrmended
more to the Council than just t e historical marker not being obstructed by
the Spectronix, Inc. sign and t Conditional Use Permit being approved. A
more complete reflection of rec rrrnendations made to the Council for approval
are in the Planning Comnission .nutes dated December 2, 1980, pages 2 and 3,
under 'l-William and Helen Pye/R Welch..." heading (of mich the Council did
include in their action on the uncil 's Meeting of Wednesday, December 17,
1980, on page 1). Motion carri d unanimously.
SHOREVK)()D ESTATES/AMERICAN CARE FACILITIES:
-Continuation of Public Heari from December 2, 1980:
Chainnan Stover read aloud the etter received into the Shorewood City Offices
on December 31, 1900 from Mr. E ls\\Urth L. Jolmson, Board Chainnan, of First
American Care Facilities (copy ttached). Because the, requested docUDents were
still in the process of being c leted, Mr, Jolmson asked that the hearing be
continued and included on the a enda of the next Planning Corrmission meeting.
Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded that we continue the public hearing to the
Planning Corrmission agenda on sday, February 3, 1981. Motion carried
unanimously.
The acting secretary, Dart Fahr nbruch, was instructed to inform Mr. Ells\\Urth
by letter of the decision taken
Councilwoman Jan Haugen stated he would contact the neighborhood of the new date.
OIHER. MATTERS:
-Jan Haugen introduced Alexander Leonardo as the hew Council Liaison to
the Planning Corrmiss~on. Subsequently, Leonardo I discussed his understanding
of his duties-. . I
, ,
--There was discussion on having a Planning Corrmisb.on representative to
the Council as needed. '
-Further, there was discussion and suggestions as t topics for future
Planning Corrmission study sessions,1 such as Home cupations, the Zoning
Ordinance, and the Comprehensive plan.
i .
CITY OF SHORE.WOOD
REGUlAR PlANNING CGt1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1981
ACTION SESSION - MINUTES
PAGE 2 OF 2
.
-Further, the acting secretary, Dart Fahrenbruch, s instructed to
call each member of the CotD:l.cil and Planning Co. ssion to arrange
for a joint-meeting between the CotD:l.cil and the ~ arming C ssion
on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, at 7:45 P.M. Its' rpose is to determine
the procedure of the review of the Comprehensi~ lane
I I
AllJOURNMENr: i
Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded, the meeting adjourn ~t 8:55 P.M. tion
carried tmanimousl y .
Respectfully submitted,
arvd;~
Dart Fahrenbruch
Acting Secretary
df
att. - 2
.
,
ROLL. CALL:
Upon roll call, t
CoUncil:
Mayor Bai
Jan Hauge
Tad Shaw
A1 Leona
Bob Rasco
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR PLANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1981 - STUDY SESSION
PAGE 1 of 2
(A JOINT MEETING BElWEEN PLANNING
MINUT
-----
CALL. TO'. ORDER:
A joint meeting be
to order by Chai
Council Chambers.
unci1 was called
7:38 P.M. in the
following people were
Also Present: Park Comnissi
Absent: Vem Watt (Reason Unknown)
.
_ CCM1ISSION' MINUTES' OF, JANUARY ~~! 19 1:
Moved by Bob Gagne , seconded by. Frank Rees' , to apprp, e he minutes of the
January 6, 1981 me ting as written. Motio' carried us1y.
on how to approach
Use Plan. Dis-
tober 1980; on
1f80; and on Report
se on wl1ether to study
rtlNO. 4. No motion
c 1 of the Twin Cities
ubdivision Ordinances
ci1 as to what
,
.
:~ =n NS REQRD= ~ ~L wmssm~
stated that the lanning qx>mnission is a! , of competent
citizens 0 have spent nuch time and! effort in stud 'ng various issues.
Inchis:cop ntoti, the ~sults f their $tudy and their! e ndations should
be serio ly considered '. by the Co , ci. Further, he
ernphasiz that input to the Council from both the P~'ng Comnission and
the Park 'ssion should recognifed and utilize~ ectively.
i
I I
,ABSENCES!, '
ng Corrmission re sted a st,atement of poli~ y
unexcused absences. i
i
eese, seconded by
ied manimoiIsly.
ly suhnitted~
I
I
i
tb adjourn the rrie
at 9:32 P.M.
.
DF
I
.
ING
IL CHAMBERS
!5 55 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
!7 30 P.M.
CITY OF
REGUl.AR "P
TL'ESDAY,
"ACTION" S
~ Ml~~I~~
ROLL CALL:
Members pr sent:
Chainnan Kr'sti Stovelr, Bob Gagne, Ff"*
Bruce Bens , Janet ~slie, Dick S~l
Cotttlcil Lia' son to t~ Planning ~ sibn - Al Leonardo
City Planne Brad Ni~lsen .
I
Stover called e rneetipg to order at
Chainnan tover explained the difficul~y in knowing ~e
the publi hearing since the ew propo~al presented tl}i
different than that previousl sul:xnitt~d.
She also
.
City Pl er Brad Nielsen rec nded ~wo altemati ve$; . 1) that the public
hearing continued and hea tonight;: or (2) that a.n w plan be sul:xnitted,
which ess tially then the de loper ~ld withdt4L. he former and present
request(s) and start over, wi h notice~ in the paper Gf a. new public hearing with
the new p oposal. . :
Chainnan tover asked if the could 1J an infonnal dig sion as well as a con-
tinuation of the public heari tonigh4. By consensu$ i. f the Planning Conmission,
it was de ennined to have an 'nformal Qiscussion; and~! 1 0, Watten motioned,
Gagne sec e. d, that the publ' c hearing.. be continued. ~~ rch 3, 1981 and is to
be based n the previous 0 'ginal sutmission. Furthe re, the Planning
Conmissi will not accept a more recJuests for cont~ ion of the public
hearing 0 the present propos 1 after ~rch 3, 1981. : t' on carried with six
ayes and e abstaining (Spel n) . I .
i
An info 1 discussion foll d, beginrling with Develq> r Jerry Mundt giving a
history 0 the development, e problems incurred, an4 the concept plans
ha~ CM ed - namely ~ tru:t t ey have ~en t~ng to 4 nn to the needs and
des~res 0 the commun~ty ~tse f, the C~ty ord~nance,. ederal and state
regulatio s. Further, that s are ~lready allotteq set aside for Shorewood
by the go mment; however, i plans c8;tmOt be worked:o t, the money will be
dispersed to other areas. .
::. ~"ta :(?::)c=;'t:~ :~~e::~ed<pJe~~ lp ~t0 ~~ ~
"coIIlIIlD1it " held different ning~, slince "cormn..m.it)f' t him means the people
at City 11 who repres~nt t e co~~y. .
I
ING
,
Conmissionurged that Mundt have direct 4 t frcm the neighbors.
Steven Gregg, 2 20 Yellowstone Trail, agr e to be the point of
Mr. Mundt on beha f of the neighbors for d 'ty contact.
,Registered Land Surve)f . 1064, Tract A
lliRealty, gave a pr~s nation and showed
. hree propo als: lOO-unit concept, a 48f ' concept, and a 9-unit
concept e of which l.\Uuld be bu.:tlt on 54 acres. ()f 54 acres, 26 acres
is builda Ie and the 28 remai 'ng (wetlands) acres wodl donated to the City
of Shci>re I
Cornnission was advised it
for further I guidance ~
an appointment
project.
.'
thatt members of the C~
.
,II had looked at the
t see where there has
'0 ed, Watten sec
usly.
0., that the. meeting adjo
at 9:12 P.M. Motion
,:Secre ary
,
,
.
.
CITY OF iSHORE OOD
REGULAR I"PLAN ING COMMISSION" MEETING
"STUDY" iSESSI N
MONDAY, IFEBRU RY 17i, 1.,981
PAGE 1 ofl2
I
!C UCIL CHAMBERS
15 5 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
17:3 P.M.
ROLL CA
Members
S
called the eeting to order at ~:39 P.M.
Members
Chairman risti Stover, Frank IRee e, Bruce Benson,
Janet Leslie, Pick Spellman; ~lso Council Liaison
Al Leonar 0 ~.z,.11
Bob Gagne (Vacation), Vern ~.
APPROVA OF M
Leslie jotion d, Reese seco
written. Mot.on carried un
I
THEODOR "TED'DEIKEL - BAY
Attorne John Giblin in At
Juster, Feike a, gave an in
Deikel,jaSkin~ that the PI a
of prov~ding r. Deikel an
for the!offshore lots. Mr.
A, B, C and on the north
ment fo access to the lake
Attorne Giblin to go to Ci
possibl to contact the Cit
approved as
ARK ADDITION:
.orney Ron Haskvitz' i nce) of Smith,
Cl>rmal presentation 0 half of Theodore
ing!Commission recQ er the situation
sement or strip tol he lake for dockage
eik~l is unwilling [ 0 subdivide outlots
ide!of the road un1 ss there is an ease-
The Planning Commt si n advised
Hail for further d.rection and also
Pla~ner Brad Nielse for an appointment.
COMP
Chai
past
'IHAN 'TIlE
NSIVE PLAN (REPORT
ma Sto er gave a back
few yea~s to arrive at
I I
s ~ecidld to just go d
Concilembers Mayor B
met on each one.
:
I
. r. (Ba. rd) HIGHER DENSI
. TAX BASE.
I . ssion needs
I
. ~.
I
. r. (Rajcop) ELIMINATE LAST 1WO SENTENCES. '
I By Ivote: 4-No's; 1- fS (Spellman). Therefor, not delete the
[ last, l.\U sentences.
~ese: [In the last para ph, in the second to la t entence, eliminate
I Ithe l.\Urds "should" and "can" and insert th rd "could" so as
[to read: As a c sequl:mce, Shorel.\Uod coo d lOOk to '
I denser esidfmtial housing in e fort to
I suppl nt and support its pres t tax base.
fote: 5-Yes; G-No Therefore, the sentenc i I to read accordingly.
!
!
:
i
I
. 4):
ound on the proced~ e
he Comprehensive P+
sed through the
It w
from
a co
e~ch item of sugg stions as presented
rd,Al Leonardo, a~ Bob Rascop and make
( onardo) DElETE
By Vote: 4-No's; 1-
meaning.
PRESENT, SHOREWOOD IS..."
not delete.
,
.
.
I
CITY OFI SHOREWOOD
REGULARI. "PLANNING COMMISSIO
"STUDY" SESSION .,... M I NUT
MONDAY ,FEBRUARY 17,-1981 -
PAGE 2 f 5
p. 1. (Baird) DELETE SECO I SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 2
I By Vote: 5-No's; Q-Y: f. Therefore, do not de ete.
p. 91.,. (Baird) DELErE lAST E OF PARAGRAPH 3.
. By Vote: to take out 'witHout negatively affe ting new developnent."
5-Yes; Q-No Therefore, do delete th five words.
p. l~. (Baird) DEIEI'E All.. B
i By Vote: 4-No; I-Yes (Spellman). Therefore,
I
p. 1]1, PP 3 (Rascop) to read. .Wl'SIZE STANDARDS AlJ) WITHPUD & PURD WNING
I ORDIIWlCES WILL PR(1,71 F'011, A VARIElY OF HOUS, E TYPES.
p. II (Leonardo) REPIACE T PARAGRAPH ENI'I'TIED RE IDENTIAL CHARACTER WITH:
''WITH CE TO CCM1UNI1Y CHAAA AND FUNCTION, SHORE-
VK)QD HAS VE[), OVER A LONG PERlO OF TIME, AS A RES I -
DENTIAL ] WITH 'TIlE TRADITI iN OF SIKGLE FAMILY HCNES.
'IHE PRES CTER REPRESENTS' ISSUE IlJE TO SOME CON-
CERN AS 'TIlE' ONGITCS AND DES! ILI1Y OF PROVIDING
ADDITIO SERVI ES."
By Vote: 4-No' s; l-Y: (Spe lman). Therefore the decision is not to
replace.
P.S. Stover: This r
In l~eu of Rascop and Leona1:1
Q-No, with the result that t
dele ed. In other words, del
Based upon an anI
that the City's
efficiently intr
reduced the poten
of housing.
longs under the s ction starting on Page 15.
ents, the Planni Conmission voted 5-Yes and
last entence of the la t paragraph is to be
e th following senten e:
is of inventory informa ion, it appears
. ot size standards and inability to
e qe elopnent clusten have effectively
.al fo creating lowerc st and a variety
rn #41 AND #7 'T, NOT EXCELSIOR.
Trail east into celsior. "
p.
for~, it is to replace he fanner.
,
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR "PLANNING COMMISSION' MEET NG
"STUDY" SESSION ~ M I NUT S
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17,-1981 -
PAGE ~ of 5
p. 24. (Rascop) ADD POINT 8.
RESPECT TO
NATURAL RE
PROIECTED
By Vote: 5-Yes; O-No;
p. 27. (Baird) DELErE # 2
DELEl'E #2
By Vote: 5-Nos; O-Ye
Vote on \\hether or no to add to #2 the :foIl , . ng statement:
"Not to the exclus.. on ofl c. ty-wide planning' so that #2
reads, "The c . ty iSit be planned and eveloped in tmits
or neighbor oods bu not to the excl ion of city-wide
planning. '
By Vote: 5-Yes; O-No; Ther~f re, agreed to a statement to #2 and
not to dele e any 0 #2.
By Vote:
DELETE #5. By vote:
Yes; Therefore do not delete.
p. 28. (Baird) DEIEI'E #9.
(Leonardo) DEI.EI'E #9
CH OFFER A BROAD AND F'UlL rnCnCE OF
ING TYPES..."
words "broad and
p. 28. (Baird) DELEl'E #13.
p. 30. ITEM #14.
p. 30.
p. 30. (Baird) .
By Vote: 5-No;
p. 31. (Baird) DELETE #5 a
By Vote: 4-No; -Yes
5-No's; O-Yes; Therefore, do not delete.
. ng members. Need
do not delete either #5 or #11.
,
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR "PLANNING COMMISSION" MEETING
"STUDY" SESSION - M I NUT E S
MONDAY, FEBRUARY l7,T1981 - - -
PAGE 4 of 5
p . 32 .
#15.
(Baird) DELEITE #15, #18, and #25.
take out "rather than just" and insert "and",
Density and lot size ,shall be the prima
iuthereview of development requests.
(Leonardo) Per same above.'
(Baird) . 5-No's; thereforeJ do not delete.
(Baird and Leonardo) 5-No~s; therefore do: not delete; but take out
"to attractiyoung persons to th ... "and insert
"to retain young persons in the "
so as to read:
considerations
y vote: 5-Yes's.
#15
#18
#25
p. 34. (Leonardo) UNDER INDUS'l'RI.4L: DElETE ITEMS 3 4. ADD: 3-FURTHER
INDUS1RIAL D . PMENr IN THE CI'IY WILL Nor BE PERMITrED.
DELEl'E #3. By Vote: 4-No' s; 1 Yes (Spellman). refore, do not delete.
DELErE #4. By Vote: 5- Yes's; Therefore, do delet .
p. 36. (Baird) DElETE #2.
By Votte: 5 No's.
erefore, do!!9! de ete.
p. 42. (Baird). IN....TABl UNO. ER, :IGHBO RH OOD DEI.EI'E 1/4 to 1/2 MIlE RADIUS.
. Standard Classifica ion frall Metro)
By Vote: 5-No's; therefor, do not delete.
p. 45. (Baird). DELEl'E f" In # , ADD WHERE FEASIB AFI'ER REQJIRED.
JELEI'E #1. . By vot, e: N9 ' s; t refore, do not del Ce.
DEI.EI'E #8. No cortInent.
p. 46. (Baird). DELEI'E #15 and
Discussion. #15 is the c ant ordinance, s how can we delete it?
Centralized-\\hat is its aning.
By vote: 5-No; erefore, do not delete.
I : -
(Leonardo) ,#1. REP4CE TEM #1 UNDER ~
use of Iterrjlati e energy fonns in
By vote: S-Yes; ther.fo , do replace with
TO READ: "ENCOURAGE
ew c<l>nstruction."
onardo 's suggestion.
.
,
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, I I
REGULAR "PLANNING CQMMISpION~' MEETING
"STUDY" SESSION - M,I N r r S
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17~-198 -
PAGE 5 of 5
s that the Council
p with ideas on a
orewood. Perhaps by
ssion? No action taken.
g adjourn at 11:00 P.M.
DF
,
.
.
APPROVAL 0 ~UARY 17- 1981-_ MIr6rn' :
Stover mot.op.ed, Reese seconded, !approval of the mi utes with the correction
that Vem atten was absent beca~e 6f -work. MJtio ca . edtmanimously.
, 1
SHOREWOOD srATES/FIRST AMERICAN 1 CARE FACILITIES:
-continua ibn of Public Hearing I from February 3, 1 81
Chairman S oVer read aloud a mernd, received fran Att me Gary Larson, of Penberthy
& Larson, t~., Excelsior, dated I February 27, 1981 on f" le in City Hall). Said
letter is rrecorrmendation by Latson to abandon the publ. c hearing because the
applicatia lin its present fonn ~s not complete. n t e application is com-
pleted and ils certified complete Iby the Zqming Admi ist tor, the matter can then
be placed ~in on the agenda with a new public hea .ng sche4u1ed. The new
hearing wi 11 require published nd>tice to all approp iate lanJ owners.
, - I '
Joe Gorec . ~s present. Repres$ntatives of Wallac & t~ Architects, and
American C ~e Facilities were no* present.
, I
Gagne moti 'ed, Leslie seconded, I that the public ri be abandoned because all
necessary ,cuments have not beem. includeql. Upon ~ 11 11 vote, motion carried
. 1 ' 1
tmaffimoUS ., 1
Chairman S qver reiterated to tIJ audience that the dev lopet must start afresh
if he wis sl to reapply. Howevet, it may' be with t e s plan or with an entirely
different qe-but it must be thtough all the regul r s ps including another
public hea ing with an official fotice in the newsp per.
, !
JAMES and- ItrIY CABALKA: 1
5885 Chr.~tmas Lake Road I
INF OISCUSSION: Simple Division (l,Jndersize
I
I
I
ajbalka presented to t:1l1e Plannir!lg Conmis s on
~sion Options" of hts propert;:y adjoini
ajct A, but described <1tS "part of 186" ou sid
-------~--~-r-----
CI'IY OF
REGULAR
TUESDAY,
"ACTION"
I
I
I
M]jNUTES
-....,.-----
!
,
I
I
I
I
Stover called thJ meeting to order
I
ROlL- CALL: '
Members pr s~t:
Frank Reese, B.Juce Benson, Janet
Bob Gagne I
I
!
Vem Watten (~rk) p Dick Spellman (
! [
City Planner Btad ~ielsen, Counci
I I
Members ab e'p.t:
Mr. James
"Boundary
property
ONeIL CHAMBERS
755 'COUNI'RY CLUB ROAD
:30 !P.M.
. co-Vacation)
1 Leonardo
iagrams of _t-wo proposed
.stir!lg residential
of Tract A survey.
,
.
.
CI'IY OF
REGULAR
TUESDAY,
"ACTION' '
PAGE 20f 3
REVKX:>D
NG CCM1ISSION MEETING - MI. NUT E S
PI 3, 1981 - - - - - - -
SION
Under Opti n No.1, possibly, he -would like to move the boundary of separation
to the s h approximate 1 y 70 f~et and thereby reduce Tract A for the purpose
of buildi a small boat dock ot1 the site without an established residence.
Under OptiNo. 2, possibly, he would like to remove the separation boundary and
expand Tr ct A to a larger proWrty for the purpose of considering the newly
enlarged single site an approvaJ:>le buildable site for construction of a second,
small res. ence on the enlarged! Tract A.
Cabalka's concem is that as hel reaches retirement he wants to know what he can
do with . sproperty. Is it po~sible to expand that small bit of land outside of
Tract A? t options does he rave, with the most favorable of being able to
stay righ in that area? Is itl possible to rent out the larger home and reside
in the slIer home, if built? I Perhaps make the property into one lot and use
it as a r sidential retirement find rental property?
Planner B ad Nielsen cited three ordinances -working against Mr. Cabalka; namely,
the zoni ,dbcking, and subdiviision ordinances.
it s~emed that the lot split is the better way to go.
After
OWNER:
9-Lot Su1::X:li vision
Strawberry Lane/Smithtown Road
Represent ti ve Terry Wannarka
The propo ed subdivision reque~t is located on the south side of Smithtown Road
and west f Strawberry Lane. Qontains 11. 98 acres and is in the R-l Zoning District.
Proposal f. 9 lots ranging in $ize fran 48,000 to 57,756 square feet in area with
an averag lot size of 53, 713 ~quare feet (1. 23 acres). As proposed, four lots
will front on Smithtown Road, tlhree on Strawberry Lane, and t-wo interior lots
(8 and 9) will be served by a proposed cul-de-sac street from Smithtown Road.
Major concetns expressed were that of (1) long, narrow configuration of the pro--
posed lots; (2) the nunber of lots having direct access to Smithtown Road;
(3) design of interior roads; and (4) the current water policy wch requires a
central water system be provided if the property is capable of division into 10 or
more lots-said property is capable of providing at least 11 and maybe 12 lots.
The Planning Corrmission suggested Mr. Wannarka wait until after the Water Policy
issue is studied.
Mr. Wannarka suggested a little bit more Ilexibility.
,
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PLANNING CCt+1ISSION MEETING - M I NUT E S
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1981 - - - - - - -
"ACTION" SESSION
PAGE 3 of 3
aIHER. MATTERS:
Chairman Stover brought up the question on priority of issues to be studied at
subsequent Planning Cornnission "Study" Sessions.
Councilman Leonardo stated the Water Policy \VOuld be studied by the Council
on March 23rd, and \\UUld like ipput frcm the Planning Conmission.
Upon agreement by the Planning Coomission, at Leslie's recorrmendations, the
issues to be studied according !to priority \\UUld be as follows:
1. Water Policy
2. Highway 7 for ~rcation
3. zOning Ordinance;,/;
+
4. The rules for th~ Planning Corrmission itself.
5. Senior Citizen Nursing Home
ADJOURNMENT:
Reese motioned, Leslie secondedl, that the meeting adjourn at 9:24 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously. .
Respectfully submitted,
~
Dart Fahrenbruch
,
,
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEEtING
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981
"STUDY" SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNI'RY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1. of ~
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Kristi
Stover called the meeting to order aj 7:40 P.M.
I
Frank Reese, Vc i.....emw atten, Janet Lejlie, Dick Spellman,
Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne
Bruce Benson (ill)
Cotmcilman Al ,Leonardo, Engineer J m Norton
:
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
APPROVAL .OF MARCH 3, 1981. MINUTES:
Gagne motioned, Leslie seconded, approval of the min tes as written. Motion
carried tmanimous1y.
HIGHWAY 7 ~ DEMARCATION ~ CHANHASSEN:
Stover referred to Chief Earl L.' Johnson's
Spellman motioned, Gagne seconded, that the Planning Corrmission recOIIlTlend to the
Cotmci1 that they follow the recorrmendation of Earl . Johnson, Chief of South Lake
Minnetonka Public Safety Depa~t, because the 1in demarcation \\Quld not serve
in the best interest of. traffic 'control on State Hi Iway 7. Motion carried
tmanimous 1 y .
WATER POLICY:
Engineer Norton described the ffitisting water systems and stages in the City of
Shorewood; those in process and those proposed. He ed a map to describe the
potential cormections of these water systems. He sa d Shorewood has a 1977 Water
Feasibility Study which is outdqted because it was p epared tmder the premise
of the possible merging with wader systems of other ities.
Pro and con responses resulted f:rom bhe question of "Does Shore\\Qod want or
need City water?" It was mentiqned some citizens in Shorewood wanted water so
much that they hooked up to neighboring cormn.mities . th the understanding in
writing that if water is ever aVailable in Shorewood they (the same citizens) also
would have to pay the hook-up fees to Shorewood. Th water in some areas is so
hard that it discolors bathroom, kitchen sinks, and lS even tmdrinkab1e.
Tonka Bay, for example, is inte1:!'ested in supplying ter to adjacent cormn.mities
because it is additional revenue for them. Accordi to the map, it seems a
potential water system already exists .for all of Sho ewood.
Stover made reference to a memo dated December 8, 19 from Frank Kelly that
stated there was an absolute promise and City policy on the following:
1. No property owner will be assessed for wate mo does not wish
to have water.
2. No property owner will lever be required to ook up to municipal
water.
3. Water will never be exf4ended where not re~sted.
Presently, there is no fire hydnants in Shorewood. tnsurance is higher as a
result. I
,
,
,
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR-PLANNING CXM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981
"STUDY" SESSION - M I NUT E S
Page ~ of ~
Gagne motioned, Leslie seconded, that the present water policy be continued and
updated. 5-ayes; 1-nay, Watten. i Motion carried.
Further discussion: Norton ment:lioned that we already have enough wells dug for
the entire Ci.ty. Another main question was what can one do with intennediate
areas, wherein exorbitant costs Q.ccur because of piece-rnea1ing;eg., M1Lain Road,
Meadow Cay,... If the developer were required to pay for the wel1(s), 'INOUld the
costs increase/decrease for the City? ~
Watten motioned, Reese Seconded,!the reconmendations for the EngLneer 0 make a
cost-comparative study between drilling wells and nmningtnmk water 1 nes from
existing wells. M:>tion carried unanimously.
Eight policies in a memo dated l~ February 1981 from Brad Nielsen rega ing
"Shore'lNOod's Policy on Provision i of Domestic Water" was reviewed and d scussed.
Policy No.1: All of Planning Corrmission in favor of. Watten moti oed,
Stover seconded. M:>tion carried tmanimously.
Policy No.2: Gagne motioned, Watten seconded, that Policy No. 2
tabled. M:>tion carried unanimously.
Policy No.3: Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded, to approve as is.
carried tmanim<t>us1 y .
Policies No. 4 through 8: Skip; not relevant to water issue.
Discussion and. Cornnents: Should. the policy reflect that which is a1~i' dy built
or what could/should be built? Should we have more wells; how to payor? If
not, 'INOuld tnmk lines be needed?
Upon further discussion, Norton responded that there is enough water t serve
the entire area in Shore'lNOod, but that it 'INOu1d not necessarily be che per to
hook up from/to any particular area. (See Policy No.2)
Reese motioned, Stover secondeci, i that the Planning Conmission as a mat er of
policy recomnend no new central wells going into the City at this time with the
exception of the one proposed for Near Motmtain. Upon vote: Reese-a)",
Stover-aye, Leslie-nay, Watten-nay, Gagne-nay, Spellman-nay. Motion fils; the
majority voted nay because of lack of infonnation.
,
.
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PLANNING Ca+1ISSION MEETI G
TUESDAY, MARCH 17,1981
"S'IUDY" SESSION ~ !. !i !! 1:.
Page 1 of ~
OTHER MATTERS:
~mprehensive.Plan
Stover comnented that basically he changes the Council made in the
sive Plan on March 7 are (1) a ensity change, (2) that alrrost every
to alternate housing, styles, types have been rerroved, and (3) tha
areas on water were left open pen ing a study on water. She expressed
of a public hearing based on the e changes.
The Planning Cornnission expresse individually their opinions as to ho they felt
their study and work of the past four-plus years were being by-passed y the
Council.
Leonardo replied by stating he d understood that since the Planning
had worked on it for so long it robably was unfair of the Council to
go allover it again.
Stover stated she believed the P arming Comnission had said it did not want to
make extensive changes in the C rehensive Plan and the Planning C . ssionhad
also compromised on the Plan. wever, rather than being allowed to p oceed, the
Planning Conmission was by-passe .
Reference was made to Ordinance o. 77, Page 5. The Planning Conmissi n interpre-
ted that the Planning Comnission had the responsibility to make rec ndations
to the Council-whether or not t e recomnendations are accepted.
Leonardo stated the Council has he right to review the Comprehensive
Janet Leslie reflected the folIo . ng comnents: We have been by-passed again. I
thought it was a campaign pranis that you (AI) would listen to what t e Planning
and Park Conmissions had to say, and I am kind of surprised because of the last
minutes (March A-council). The uncil was not reconmended by the PI .ng
Comnission to hold the public he rings. I feel the Planning Comnissi was being
manipulated in regards to the fa t that you (AI) were trying to convey to the
City Council that we no longer ted to deal with the revisions in th Land Use
Plan. The situation in fact was that the majority of the Planning ssion was
not going to approve of the revi ions that the Council wanted; so they (Council)
chose to ignore the Planning C .ssion vote and deal with it independ tly.
Therefore, I feel we have been i ored again.
Stover stated that she thought i could be a slight wording difference that could
be heard/understood in more than one way, and since it is so similar t if the
choice of words spoken is not pr cisely accurate it could be interpret d entirely
differently. For example, in th February 23, 1981 Council minutes, Page 5 of
5, it states "reluctant to chang ", but it does not state a "reluctanc to work
on it."
Gagne's reflection of the minute was that the Council was willing to isten to
the Planning Conmission as long s it did not disagree with the Counci. He also
reminded Leonardo that part of h. s campaign was that he l.\UU1d listen tq thebPlanning Cornnission, not just on subdivisions but on all issues studiecl by the
Planning Cornnission. - I
I
,
.
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR PLANNING C<M1ISSION MEEI'ING
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981
"STUDY" SESSION M I NUT E S
Page ~ of ~
Leonardo responded by saying there has been complaints of the Planning CoIl11lission' s
reconmendations not being listened to; however, that the Council is and plans to
continue to heed their recomnendations. Yet the Council has the responsibility
to reflect its decisions according to the majority of the people who voted.
Watten in turn responded by saying that the Planning Comnission is not a political
body but an appointed body by the Council to represent the best possible planning
for the whole City of Shorewood. The Planning CoIl11lission' s responsibilities are
based on good planning for now and the future and is not to be based on politics
and on the opinions of those elected to the Council. The Comnission has the
responsibility to fulfill its duties, . whether or not the Council listens. Watten
also expressed his viewpoint that Leonardo, as a representative of the Council,
was coming across as being dictatorial to the Planning Comnission which was
causing the Planning Comnission to react in defense.
Watten requested a statement of intended policy for the growth of the City and
how the Council plans to work with the Plarmer and the appointed conmissions, of
which the rest of the Planning Comnission concurred.
The Plarming Comnission expressed its desire for re-involvement in the Comprehen-
sive Plan BEFORE it goes to the public hearing.
Haugen from the floor cOl1lIlented the problem here seems to be that the previous
Council allowed the Planning CoIl11lission to have a vote. However, now there has
been a philosophical policy change on the majority of the new Council who have
taken the responsibility of what will be changed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Leonardo stated he was not in favor of both the Planning Comnission and Council
having an equal vote, because it is the Council who is the elected body and who
should make the final decisions.
Watten suggested a joint-meeting between the Council and the Planning Comnission
PRIOR to it going to the printing and to have the Planner present.
To surrmarize, there are to be four messages to the Council:
1. A request for the Council's philosophical policy statement for
the growth of the City and how the Council plans to work with
the Planner and appointed commissions from the Mayor in writing.
2. A request for a JOINT Council-Planning CoIl11lission meeting PRIOR
to printing, with the Plarmer included.
3. A request for the Planning Comnission's reinvolvement in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan BEFORE the public hearing in order
to fulfill its responsibilities, and
4. A request for the Engineer to make a cost-comparative study
between drilling wells and running trunk water lines fromlto
existing wells.
ADJOURNMENT :
Leslie motioned, Reese seconded, for adjournment at 10:15 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully sulxnitted,
[} a/,x r
Dart Fahrenbcruch
CIIT OF SHOREWOOD
"ACTION" PLANNING CXM4ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981
PAGE 1 of 3
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Kristi Stover called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M.
ROU. CALL:
Members Present: Vem. Watten, Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Dick Spellman,
Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne, Frank Reese
Also Present: Council Liaison At Leonardo, Planner Brad Nielsen
APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES OF MARCH 17, 1981:
Gagne motioned, Leslie seconded, approval of the minutes as written. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
--Cancelled at the request of Kipp Johnson, Applicant
Pt.mp & Meter Service Inc./The Little Store, 19215 Highway 7
SHOREWOOD ESTATES/SHORE:troD FAMILY HOUSING:
-Infonnal Discussion (Joe Gorecki)
Proposed Plan consists of about 9.5 acres:
Site A = 40 townhouse units (4 acres)
Site B = 54 unites, 3-story (1.7 acres)
Site C = 6 duplexes (3.8 acres)
.
Gorecki presented a preliminary plan requesting direction from the Planning
Coomission. If the answer is no, it is very possible that the project would
not be presented again in its present form. Stover stated the plan seemed to
be almost identical to the past ones proposed on Shorewood Estates and didn't
see how the Planning Corrmission could really direct Gorecki further. until
an actual proposal is presented from \\hich to negotiate. It was suggested
that Gorecki meet with the neighbors for input as to other possible solutions,
since the density of the proposed plan is very high for Shorewood.
The main concem.s still remaining are (1) that of density and (2) that of
getting input from the neighbors.
Upon questioning by those from the floor and the Planning Corrmission members,
Gorecki conmented that it would be a quality project and probably would be
built in three phases, with Site C as the first phase. All tenants would be
carefully screened and be credible. The high cost of land necessitates a
higher clustering in density than presently allowed in Shorewood in order for
development to be profitable. There is a financial conmitment but not a c0m-
mitment for subsidizing. Flexibility is possible, but not assured. The 40
could be dropped to perhaps 28 and the doubles increased by 2 or 3. The
elderly units cannot be compromised. Yes, perhaps condominiuns could be
considered. Gorecki agreed to meet at City Hall with the neighbors of the
proposed site(s).
.
ROUTING
M ,. Pl J
C tf pc::L
~Pk'7
A...l.- E~
Agendl. ~ /1_j't::.'8.'
D1spos.' ,.~ r 7"'
PNll
.';